Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Japan (Hong Kong Trade)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the decision of the Japanese Government to exclude Hong Kong from the Generalised Preference Scheme in respect of certain goods; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Japanese Government about their decision to exclude Hong Kong from the Generalised Preference Scheme in respect of a substantial number of items; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Japanese Government about their decision to exclude Hong Kong from the Generalised Preference Scheme in respect of a large number of items; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dan Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent information he has received from the Japanese Government about their intentions regarding the scope of its Generalised Preference Scheme in respect of Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): The Japanese Government have informed us of their decision to add Hong Kong, along with a number of other countries and territories, to the list of beneficiaries of their Generalised Preference Scheme, but that they have felt it necessary to exclude 96 products specifically for Hong Kong. Her Majesty's Embassy in Tokyo has already made known to the Japanese Government informally our disappointment at the length of the exceptions list. We and the Hong Kong Government are now studying the likely effects on Hong Kong's trade of the exceptions, with a view to making further representations to the Japanese Government.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: As these 96 items represent over 50 per cent. of Hong Kong's trade with Japan, will my hon. Friend assure me that in his forthcoming visit to Tokyo his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will point out to the Japanese that they cannot expect all countries to adopt a liberal attitude towards Japanese exports when they themselves refuse to be liberal?

Mr. Kershaw: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. We take the view that the Hong Kong people are being unfairly discriminated against. Japan holds one-quarter of Hong Kong's entire import market and is running a trading surplus with the colony of well over £200 million a year.

Mr. Blaker: I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has said that this matter will be taken up again with the Japanese. Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be a great deal of support in the House for vigorous representations to be made to the Japanese Government?

Mr. Kershaw: Yes, Sir. It is our hope that these further discussions will lead to a satisfactory outcome.

Hong Kong

Mr. Lamond: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the members of the Hong Kong Executive Council or Legislative Council are industrial workers.

Mr. Kershaw: On the Executive and Legislative Councils there are no industrial workers in the sense of manual workers, although industry and commerce are well represented.

Mr. Lamond: Would it not be fair and just if the 4 million ordinary working people in Hong Kong had some representation on these Legislative and Executive Councils as a first step towards the creation of a proper, democratically elected governing body for this Crown colony for which we are responsible?

Mr. Kershaw: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Hong Kong is run through a complex pattern of statutory boards, councils and committees. On those which are concerned with industrial employees, workers sit as individuals and representatives of trade unions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, constitutional de-

velopment as we know it in other territories is not open to Hong Kong.

Mr. Blaker: Will my hon. Friend tell us how many industrial workers were in the last Labour Cabinet?

Mr. Kershaw: Not without a great deal of research which I should find rather tedious.

Mr. Foley: Would the Minister describe the Executive Council of Hong Kong as being fully representative? What steps is he taking to make sure that it represents the totality of the people who live and work there and give it its existence?

Mr. Kershaw: It is of course the aim of the representation on these various councils that it should be representative. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there will be a further choice of representatives for the Executive and other Councils on 30th June. No doubt the Governor will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Rhodesia

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now invite Bishop Muzorewa and representatives of the African National Council to visit London for talks on constitutional proposals for Rhodesia.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Joseph Godber): My right hon. Friend saw a delegation from the African National Congress on 3rd May and I myself saw Bishop Muzorewa on an earlier visit.

Mr. Hughes: As a result of these recent discussions, do the Minister and his right hon. Friend now accept and understand that there can be no honourable and peaceful settlement in Rhodesia unless the African people of Rhodesia are freely and directly brought into the negotiations?

Mr. Godber: We understand the view of the African National Council on this and other matters. One reason for establishing the Pearce Commission was to make sure that we were fully apprised of the views of the African people as a whole.

Dr. Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth


Affairs when he last made representations to the regime in Rhodesia about the case of the Tangwena people.

Mr. Godber: The case of the Tangwena people was raised during exploratory discussions conducted by Lord Goodman in the latter part of last year.

Dr. Marshall: In view of the assurance given in a Written Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) on 19th February, 1971, that matters of this sort would be taken into account in any negotiations for a settlement, will the Government bring maximum pressure to bear to protect the rights of these persecuted people?

Mr. Godber: Yes. I understand the point the hon. Gentleman has put. I should remind him that the proposals which were published towards the end of last year provided for an independent commission to examine the question of racial discrimination which would have a special duty to consider the provisions of the Land Tenure Act. We have very much in mind the kind of case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Until my right hon. Friend makes his statement on the Pearce Report, it would be wrong for me to comment.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement on Rhodesia in the light of the Pearce Report.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects to publish the report of the Pearce Committee on the proposals for a settlement in Rhodesia.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement about Rhodesia in the light of the Pearce Report.

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now give the dates when he expects to receive and to publish the report of the Pearce Commission

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he can now state on what date he expects the Pearce Report to reach him.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he now expects to make a statement upon the findings of the Pearce Commission in Rhodesia before the Whitsun Recess.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend has now received the Report of the Pearce Commission. It is a lengthy document and, as he told the House on 24th April, he will need a little time to consider it before publishing it and making a statement.—[Vol. 835, c. 1036.]

Mr. Hamilton: Is it the case—it is generally agreed that it is—that the Africans have refused to accept the proposals put forward in the joint discussions between Mr. Smith and the Foreign Secretary? If so, may we have an assurance, first, that this House will be informed before anyone else of the contents of the Pearce Report and, second, that in the event of the answer being "No" the sanctions policy will be pursued and even strengthened?

Mr. Godber: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement on the report which has been promised. It would, therefore, be wrong for me to comment on its contents or on any matters arising from it.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: If the settlement is not implemented on both sides, as I hope it will be, will not the Africans of Rhodesia come to curse those on the benches opposite and elsewhere who have incited them to reject the best available terms, which would have vastly improved their position and given them British aid?

Mr. Godber: Again, I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement. My right hon. Friend has made it clear in the House that he believes the proposals provide an honest way out of what is a very difficult situation; but we must await his statement on the Pearce findings.

Mr. Davis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the honour of Her Majesty's Government is at stake over this issue? In these circumstances does


he not think that in the interim the strongest possible representations should be made to the Government of the United States, which has embarked on a programme of sanctions busting on copper, a policy which could have a most deleterious effect on the under-developed countries which depend on this commodity?

Mr. Godber: I am satisfied about the position of the honour of this Government in relation to this matter. Indeed, it could be in no better hands than those of my right hon. Friend. As for the breaking of sanctions, there are many who have broken them, as I have previously indicated in the House, and I am not prepared to pick out one particular Government in this context.

Mr. King: Will my right hon. Friend make a clear distinction between the desirability of a settlement—and the answer to that may well be "No"—and the continuation of the Beira patrol and other political curiosities which everyone admits have not been eminently successful?

Mr. Godber: I would have thought that what Her Majesty's Government have done in regard to sanctions and the Beira patrol has been in complete fulfilment of the undertakings we gave on this matter. No decision can be announced until my right hon. Friend has made his statement, which he hopes to do shortly.

Mr. Richard: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify two points? First, when can we expect the statement from his right hon. Friend? Will we receive it before the Whitsun Recess? Does he realise that hon. Members on this side and the country generally are anxious that this matter should be disclosed soon? Second, irrespective of what the report contains, may we have an undertaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that sanctions will continue and, if necessary, be intensified in the period between the report being published and the Government making up their considered view on what should be the next stage in their policy on Rhodesia?

Mr. Godber: I am happy to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman, in answer to the first part of his supplementary question, that my right hon. Friend has the firm intention of making a statement

before the Whitsun Recess. The answer to the second part is that I cannot add further to what I have said because it is my right hon. Friend's wish to make the statement himself. I am sure that it will be his wish when making it to cover all these matters, the importance of which I recognise. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not wish in any way to shirk his responsibility of explaining in full the position of the Government.

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the cost to the British taxpayer of the negotiations leading to the proposed settlement with the illegal regime in Rhodesia; and if he will also state the cost to the British taxpayer of the visit to Rhodesia by the Pearce Commission and the compilation of its report.

Mr. Godber: The final accounts are not yet available but the approximate total cost of the preliminary discussions and the subsequent negotiations in Salisbury last year is estimated at £37,000 and the visit of the Pearce Commission and the compilation of its report at £118,000.

Mr. Latham: Does the right hon. Gentleman think he will get value for money? Is not this likely to be one of the most expensive recorded "Noes" in history? Does he accept that many of us are awaiting with considerable curiosity and anxiety to discover why it has taken so long to record what one hopes will be the simple word "No" and why it should take such a large volume? Can the right hon. Gentleman at least lift the veil of secrecy very slightly and assure us that the terms of reference of the Pearce Commission have not been widened beyond those known to the House?

Mr. Godber: The terms of reference of the Pearce Commission were not widened. They were specific. As to the hon. Gentleman's point about value for money, an operation of this kind is bound to cost some money and it was certainly right that the attempt should be made. The whole House was in accord with it. The value for money of this operation was at least as great as the value for money of the "Fearless" and "Tiger" operations. I have the figures for those available if the hon. Gentleman wishes to have them.

Sir R. Cary: What has the Beira Patrol cost the British taxpayer over the last seven years?

Mr. Godber: I could not give that figure without notice.

Mr. Foley: Given the fact that the British taxpayer is to foot the bill of the Pearce Report and that Ministers have said that this is a British test of acceptability, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why Mr. Smith has received a copy of the Pearce Report before any hon. Member on either side of the House?

Mr. Godber: Mr. Smith has not in fact received a copy at this stage. It is my right hon. Friend's intention to see that a copy is made available to Mr. Smith in confidence before it is published. This is in accordance with previous practice, as for instance with the reports of the Monckton Commission and the commission that dealt with matters in relation to Malaysia at a later stage.

Arab-Israeli Dispute

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he is having with the United States Government about the Arab-Israeli dispute, prior to President Nixon's visit to Moscow.

Mr. Godber: The Arab-Israeli dispute was one of the questions which my right hon. Friend discussed with Mr. Rogers when he was here last week. The details of those discussions must of course remain confidential.

Mr. Luce: Despite their obvious preoccupation with Vietnam and other issues in Moscow, will my right hon. Friend urge President Nixon to raise this matter in Moscow in view of the heavy responsibilities of both America and Russia to exercise restraint in the Middle East? Does he accept that the most likely areas for progress are where there is the least contention? Will he therefore press President Nixon to raise particularly the question of the Suez Canal and Sinai in his discussions?

Mr. Godber: Yes. I should be surprised if this subject were not touched upon at some stage during the discussions in Moscow. I observe the points which my hon. Friend has raised about this matter. Her Majesty's Government are

anxious to make progress in any way possible. If the Americans and the Russians in this forthcoming meeting are able to find some common ground they will find very ready acceptance from Her Majesty's Government and co-operation in trying to find a solution to this most difficult problem.

Mr. Kaufman: Since a major contribution towards the improvement of Arab-Israeli relations would be if the Syrians were to desist from torturing and harassing Jews in Syria, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to suggest to President Nixon that he should ask the Russians to use their considerable influence with the Syrians in dealing with this matter?

Mr. Godber: We have every sympathy with any attempt to prevent treatment such as that to which the hon. Gentleman refers. There are many problems concerning this matter not only in Syria, but elsewhere. We have made our position abundantly apparent. We deplore any action of the kind described by the hon. Gentleman. Wherever it occurs we would seek to discourage it in any way we possible can. That is abundantly clear from our statements.

European Security and Co-operation (Conference)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives he now intends to propose to ensure the successful outcome of the European Security Conference.

Mr. Roderick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in the light of recent developments in the German Federal Republic, he will make a further statement regarding the Government's attitude to the proposed East-West European Security Conference.

Mr. Godber: The proposal for a conference on security and co-operation in Europe concerns all members of the Atlantic Alliance. With our allies we believe that multilateral preparations should await the signature of the Berlin Agreement. But in the meantime we have separately been in touch with the Finnish Government about their offer to provide facilities for the preparatory talks.

Mrs. Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what progress he thinks is likely to be made with the ratification of the treaties between West Germany, the Soviet Union and Poland? Has he, for example, been in touch with the CDU to see whether its opposition to the ratification can be minimised? How is Britain's refusal to support the application of the German Democratic Republic to take part in the Stockholm conference, for example, where our delegate is voting against, likely to help future European security and peace?

Mr. Godber: There have been many Press reports during the last week about the debate on ratification. I think it would be premature for me to make any comment about that matter. The hon. Lady asked specifically whether we have been in touch with the CDU. Our relations must be between Government and Government in these matters. I made clear in the House some time ago that while we favour ratification, it is not for us to tell the Bundestag how it should behave concerning this matter. On the final point, I have already explained to the hon. Lady that we feel we must work in concert with our allies concerning acknowledgment of the GDR.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the stalling of the last 12 to 18 months, Her Majesty's Government have a most regrettable reputation throughout Europe for dragging the chains on this issue? Will he try to inject some imagination into his colleagues to see that we do not have to carry this kind of reputation around Europe for much longer?

Mr. Godber: Her Majesty's Government have a much better reputation now than they had two or three years ago on this and all international matters. On this matter it is not a question of the Government dragging their feet. We are working in concert with our allies. We are as anxious as any of them to make progress in this matter, but it is for the German Bundestag to decide on ratification. When that is done and the Berlin agreements can be ratified, we can have speedy progress.

Mr. Richard: Will the right hon. Gentleman now publish, so that we can all read the memorandum which appar-

ently The Guardian, half the States of Europe and half the foreign Press have read?

Mr. Godber: I have seen the reference in The Guardian. This document was not intended for publication. It is not a ministerial statement of any kind. It is an official working paper which does not represent the considered view of Her Majesty's Government. It is one of many papers which are circulated among our allies for mutual clarification.

Northern Ireland

Mr. McMaster: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what protest has been made by Her Majesty's Government in respect of the kidnapping and murder of Corporal James Elliott of the Ulster Defence Regiment to the Government of the Republic of Ireland; and what reply has been received.

Mr. Godber: We made representations to the Government of the Irish Republic as soon as news of the kidnapping was received to urge the closest co-operation in tracing those responsible. The authorities in the Republic responded and I understand that two men have since been arrested in the Republic and remanded in custody. The Government of the Republic are in no doubt of our views on this barbarous action perpetrated from south of the Border.

Mr. McMaster: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the ordinary law-abiding British citizen in Northern Ireland is getting very tired of the apparent failure of the Southern Irish Government properly to police the Border, to stop attacks across it and to arrest those who are known in the South to be planning murderous IRA attacks on civilians and property in the North and who, when charged, are often released on flimsy grounds, such as lack of proper identification?

Mr. Godber: I understand the difficulties expressed by my hon. Friend. We consistently urge the Irish authorities to co-operate more closely with the security forces in the North to control the Border effectively. While we welcome such steps as have already been taken, including the strengthening of police reinforcements, we still look for closer co-operation.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the crux of this matter is that there is no extradition treaty to get such murderers back to be tried in the courts of the country in which they have committed these dastardly crimes? Has not the time now come for him to take up the whole matter with the Government of the Republic and to have their definition of what they say is political murder?

Mr. Godber: I think we must continue our close and strong attempt with the Government of the Republic to strengthen the provisions which they are making to secure the objectives which both the hon. Gentleman and I have in mind. On the specific point about extradition, I have nothing useful to add to what has been said previously on that subject.

European Economic Community

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations he has received from the Australian Government about possible British action to protect Australian interests following Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): We have had useful informal and exploratory talks at official level with the Australians on the prospects for their commodity exports which could be affected by our accession to the European Economic Community.

Mr. Huckfield: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman able to understand that I am a little at a lass to understand what he has just said, especially as the Australian Labour Party has been given the definite impression that very strenuous representations have been made? Is this not the Australian Minister of Trade roaring like a lion when he is at home but squeaking like a mouse when he is abroad?

Mr. Rippon: We have always been grateful for the support of the Australian Labour Party for Britain's accession to the Community. We have always understood that there are problems relating to particular commodities. Some of these problems are dealt with in the general arrangements in Protocol 16 of the Act

annexed to the Treaty of Accession. These discussions are going on all the time and we had some useful and valuable discussions, as I indicated in my reply, on 7th, 10th and 11th April.

Mr. Blaker: Is it not an encouraging fact for the Australian Government to bear in mind that between 1958, when the Community was founded, and 1971 Australian exports to the Community increased very much faster, in spite of tariffs, than Australian exports to this country?

Mr. Rippon: Certainly there are anxieties about particular commodities. I think that the Australian Government are right in the general view which they have expressed that it will benefit Australia as well as the United Kingdom and Europe when enlargement takes place.

Mr. Shore: Would it not be more honest to admit the truth that there are no safeguards for Australian interests, that Australian trade will be treated as that of a third country by Britain if and when we join the Common Market and that for Australia this means that in place of preferential access to the British market she will have to face a common external tariff? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman expect Britain's exports to Australia to be able to continue to enjoy the preferences they now receive?

Mr. Rippon: What would be dishonest would be to give Australians the impression that the right hon. Gentleman was expressing the real truth. Everyone understands the position perfectly well. The safeguards are there in Protocol 16, and there are satisfactory arrangements which we have developed for consultations with the Australian Government and the Australian people.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will be attending the meeting of Common Market Ministers on 26th May.

Mr. Rippon: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I expect to visit Luxembourg at the end of this month when there will be meetings of Foreign Ministers of the Ten.

Mr. Marten: At these meetings will my right hon. and learned Friend and the Foreign Secretary speak up very clearly on behalf of those members of EFTA who are not joining the Community? Does he recall the communique, issued at the end of the EFTA meeting, which refers to the problems of crucial importance to them which remain unsolved? Is not the best way to get the Six to come to heel over this and many other outstanding issues to tell them clearly that this House will not have a Report and Third Reading of the European Communities Bill until all outstanding matters are settled?

Mr. Rippon: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and I attended the meeting of the EFTA Council of Ministers at the beginning of May. The communique was issued thereafter. We are all satisfied with the way things are proceeding at the moment. We indicated the problems which were still outstanding in the negotiations with the Six and we indicated the support we would give to our EFTA partners. Their negotiations are their responsibility, but they know our views and they know the support they will receive from us.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman perhaps take with him as a brief the excellent weekend speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) and try to raise some of the points which he put forward? Everyone is interested in those matters.

Mr. Rippon: One of the items for discussion by Heads of Governments at the summit conference at the end of October will be the external relations and responsibilities of the Community. That is an item on the agenda which will certainly cover problems of increased contributions to the developing countries of the world. It is a matter to which we, like the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), attach considerable importance.

Mr. Loveridge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent representations he has received from the United States Government relating to the alteration in trade patterns which they anticipate after Great Britain

joins the European Economic Community.

Mr. Rippon: The United States Government have from time to time made known to Her Majesty's Government as well as to the present Community their interest in the effects of enlargement on their export markets.

Mr. Loveridge: I appreciate that answer. Will my right hon. and learned Friend do his best to ensure that there is a reasonable compromise between our colleagues in Europe, ourselves and the United States over trade matters, so that we do not further encourage isolationist thinking in the United States?

Mr. Rippon: Certainly, I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I envisage that next year there will be a round of discussions in which we shall be involved, under the auspices of GATT or OECD, which we must all hope will encourage further liberalisation of trade.

Mr. Deakins: Has not the movement towards protectionism in recent years in the United States been basically caused by the inward-looking, protectionist and imperialistic policies of the European Economic Community in relation to—[AN HON. MEMBER "Nonsense".]—preferential trading agreements instead of multilateral trade agreements?

Mr. Rippon: United States trade with the Community has been consistently expanding and the United States has large surpluses in its trade. There are certainly problems. It would be unfair to criticise the United States for its protionist policies. To some extent we are all involved from time to time in protecting local interests. But certainly we wish to encourage the United States and everyone else to liberalise trade still further by reducing non-tariff barriers as well as tariff barriers.

British Diplomats (Swiss Finance Inquiries)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date two British diplomats were asked to leave Berne in respect of bribes alleged to have been offered by them on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to officials of a


finance company; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kershaw: I have nothing to add to the answer given on 20th March to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.—[Vol. 833, c.233–4.]

Mr. King: However pure-minded the object—and we do not doubt that—does not the offer of bribes by British diplomats inevitably give offence to the countries in which they are accredited? Is it worth while for the amount of information received?

Mr. Kershaw: My hon. Friend is mistaken. Bribes were not offered by the embassy staff to anybody. If information of value is offered to us for the detection of criminal offences against United Kingdom law it would be perverse and wrong not to accept it.

Vietnam

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the Communist aggression in Vietnam, with special reference to Her Majesty's Government's responsibilities under the Geneva Agreement.

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent approaches he has made to the Geneva Conference Co-Chairman on Indochina in regard to the armed North Vietnamese invasion of the Republic of Vietnam.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about Communist aggression in Vietnam in the light of his co-chairmanship of the Geneva Conference.

Mr. Godber: On 10th May my right hon. Friend again asked the Soviet Ambassador to convey a formal appeal to Mr. Gromyko to join him in reconvening the Geneva Conference. My right hon. Friend awaits Mr. Gromyko's reply.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does not the Soviet Co-Chairman's refusal of Her Majesty's Government's request to reconvene the Geneva Conference expose

the Soviet Union as an abettor of aggression? Is it not the case that the Soviet Union has been the main arms supplier of Hanoi? What help is being given, and can be given, to refugees who have every reason to fear Communist domination?

Mr. Godber: On the first point, my right hon. Friend is still awaiting Mr. Gromyko's reply and I think it would be wrong to try to anticipate what that reply might be. I agree with the second point raised by my hon. Friend about refugees. I hope to touch on that during the debate which I understand we shall be having later.

Mr. Dykes: As the reply has been delayed and as, when it comes, it may be unfavourable—and that, unfortunately, is to be expected—will my right hon. Friend consider with his right hon. Friend the possibility of raising at the United Nations the matter of the North Vietnamese invasion of the Republic of Vietnam?

Mr. Godber: There are all sorts of possibilities in regard to this. Her Majesty's Government are anxious to help to promote a settlement. I should like to put this in its proper context in the speech I hope to make later.

Mr. Latham: Will the right hon. Gentleman state factually and precisely who was responsible for the non-implementation of the Geneva Agreement on the carrying out of full Vietnamese elections? What reason is there for either the British Government or the Soviet Government—or anyone else—to suppose that any similar undertaking would be honoured in the future and not be breached as it was by the American Government?

Mr. Godber: There have been various charges and counter-charges in regard to the agreement about Vietnam. I do not propose to pass judgment here this afternoon. I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the speech which I hope to make later, when I shall try to put the whole matter into its proper context.

Mr. Goodhart: Will my right hon. Friend remember that 600,000 Vietnamese have been driven from their homes by the Communist offensive which has been backed to the hilt by the Soviet


Union? Will he remember that the British medical team at the children's hospital at Saigon did excellent work earlier in the conflict, and will he now do everything he can to recruit a fresh medical team to help this battered country?

Mr. Godber: On the figures quoted by my hon. Friend, I think that the position is if anything worse than he quoted, which emphasises the importance of his point. Certainly the Government will do all they can to help alleviate suffering in the way my hon. Friend has indicated.

Mr. Heffer: Has not the situation really arisen from the word "go" because the Americans never accepted the Geneva Accord? Is it not clear that the real aggressor in Vietnam is the presence there of Americans who have continued with their bombing and destruction of North Vietnam and the devastation of people in both North and South Vietnam, and that the most important contribution which the Government can make is to urge the Americans to leave Vietnam at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Godber: I find that an extremely prejudiced attitude on this very difficult issue. Her Majesty's Government will try to take an objective view in trying to bring about a settlement of this dreadful problem.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received, in his capacity as Co-Chairman under the Geneva Agreement, concerning use by the United States Government of pellet bombs designed to kill individuals for dropping on the civilian population of Hanoi.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the North Vietnamese Government has made to him in his capacity of Co-Chairman of the Geneva Convention about the bombing by the United States of America in the war in Vietnam.

Mr. Godber: None, Sir.

Mr. Jenkins: Will not the right hon. Gentleman take note of what has been happening in Hanoi? A constituent of mine, Dr. Philip Harvey, has been in Hanoi in the last month and has seen

pellet bombs dropped on individuals, has seen the victims in hospital and has seen houses destroyed. As we are supposed to be an ally of a civilised country which is in breach of international law, would it not be appropriate if the Government made some sort of protest to the United States about this matter?

Mr. Godber: It is not for us to make protests about individual types of weapons used. One could just as well protest about the terrible damage caused by the heavy artillery used by the North Vietnamese. As I see it our duty is to try to find some means of making progress towards peace, and that is the important thing.

Mr. Huckfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied about this grave international crisis, in which so far this country has said precisely nothing? Are we to say nothing about the inhuman and cruel bombing, inhuman and cruel by any sane standards? Are we to do nothing to stop this confrontation which is being deliberately encouraged by Nixon?

Mr. Godber: On the first point, we certainly deplore casualties caused by both sides. But we are not prepared to choose one side to attack in this regard. The North Vietnamese are the aggressors in this case and have invaded the South. I hope, Mr. Speaker, to catch your eye later today to develop Her Majesty's Government's position on this matter, and I will certainly say something about this then.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the South Vietnamese have every right to invoke the support of their allies in tactical close air support operations in defence of their territory and, by interdiction, to prevent the incursion of aggressive armaments which imperil their livelihood?

Mr. Godber: My hon. Friend has made clear the unfairness of questions from the Opposition in regard to this matter. It is clear that there are very great difficulties in this conflict. Her Majesty's Government are trying to find ways towards peace. That is why I do not want to become involved about particular questions of armaments, on either side.

Seychelles

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his talks with Mr. James Mancham, and other Seychelles leaders in London, on the question of a constitution for the Seychelles.

Mr. Kershaw: Neither Mr. James Mancham nor any other Seychelles leader who may now be in London has sought any meeting with me on the question of a new constitution for the Seychelles.

Mr. Dalyell: Have the Government taken the prudent precaution of talking to the Opposition dissident groups in the Seychelles and at least hearing their views?

Mr. Kershaw: The present constitution was agreed by all the political leaders in the Seychelles at the London Conference in March, 1970, and it came into operation in October, 1970. It has been going for 18 months and there is no reason to change it now.

Mr. Mather: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the great majority of people in the Seychelles are in favour of closer ties with Britain, and will he consider ways and means of sustaining their wish in this matter?

Mr. Kershaw: We very much reciprocate the desire to be in the closest touch with our co-citizens in the Seychelles. Any question of changing the constitution is, of course, another matter.

USSR (Jewish Scientists)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make representations to the Soviet Government regarding the recent harassment of Soviet Jewish scientists who have sought to join relatives in Israel in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Mr. Kershaw: The Soviet Government are well aware of our views on the general issue in question. We have no proper standing to take up individual cases, and indeed this might be counter-productive.

Mr. Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Jewish prayer book sent

via BEA to Leonid Slepak, the son of one of Moscow's most harassed Jewish scientists, has been impounded by the Soviet authorities and that, unless the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) has other information, it remains in the Moscow customs shed?
As 200 hon. Members, including the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and, I believe, the Minister himself have associated themselves with this unique personal and very kindly gift, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to seek an opportunity at an early date to inform the Soviet authorities that their failure promptly to hand over this book is quite inexplicable by ordinary civilised standards?

Mr. Kershaw: I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on his initiative in this matter. We are hopeful that the detention of this prayer book on the ground that it should have been sent freight or something like that is only a matter of official bumbledom and we are endeavouring to clarify the position.

Mr. Cormack: Is my hon. Friend aware that I spoke to the elder brother of the boy concerned on the telephone to Moscow about an hour and a half ago and that I shall be telephoning him again later this afternoon? Will my hon. Friend promise to take up this matter at an early stage with the Soviet Ambassador should the official bumbledom become fossilisation?

Mr. Kershaw: I have taken note of my hon. Friend's comments. I very much hope that we will be able to help but it would be premature for me to say now exactly what we would do.

Chile

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to make an official visit to Chile.

Mr. Godber: At the present moment my right hon. Friend has no plans to do so. I paid an official visit to Chile in March and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and my noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs have both visited Chile for the UNCTAD conference.

Mr. Davis: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that something should be done to repair the damage done by the Minister for Trade who, I am told, in the two and a half days he deigned to spend there, failed to call on one member of the Chilean Government although he had time to dine with the Anglo-Chilean Chamber of Commerce? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the importance of doing something to assist trade with this developing country by, for example, reviving export credit guarantees?

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman is being somewhat unfair in that supplementary question. My right hon. Friend went there specifically to attend the UNCTAD conference. No discourtesy of any kind was meant to the Chilean Government. I spent some time in Chile and had long discussions with the President and other members of the Government. Our relations with that country are extremely cordial and we are seeking to do everything we can to encourage trade between our two countries.

Mr. Luce: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous fund of good will towards Britain not only in Chile but in other Latin American countries? Britain's initiative in arranging a seminar this week on Latin American affairs is a welcome move on the part of all who wish to see closer ties between Chile and Britain and the other Latin American countries and Britain.

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. This seminar could be an important landmark in relations. It has been widely welcomed in the countries of Latin America and I hope that its outcome will be a great success.

Irish Republic (External Affairs Minister)

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether he will make a statement on his meeting with Dr. Patrick Hillery, the Irish Republican Minister of Foreign Affairs, in London on 27th April.

Mr. Godber: I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South

(Mr. Pounder) on 8th May.—[Vol. 836, c. 266.]

Mr. Duffy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the Foreign Secretary's meeting with the Irish Foreign Minister, Mr. Lynch has set up an all-party committee on constitutional change and that hon. Members of good will look confidently to him for further constructive measures? On the other hand, may I ask the Minister to say what steps the Foreign Secretary has indicated Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to take to lessen disunity in the whole of Ireland?

Mr. Godber: That is a very large topic to discuss by way of question and answer. Our position is clearly that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and forms an integral part of it. Any question of change would be a major matter of policy which I could neither discuss nor consider replying to at Question Time.

Mr. McMaster: Will my right hon. Friend make known to the Southern Irish Government that repeated unfriendly statements indicating their continued desire to effect the accession of part of the territory of the United Kingdom, namely Ulster, against the will of the majority can do nothing but harm in the present situation?

Mr. Godber: Yes, statements of that kind do nothing but harm; but, on the other hand, the Government of the Republic are seeking to try to help in such ways as they can with regard to some very difficult problems at present. I would wish to say nothing to exacerbate those problems still further.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development at Santiago.

Mr. Kershaw: The committees and working groups were due to report to the conference in plenary session in the course of last week. Many points of disagreement remain and intensive consultations to resolve these will take place before the conference ends this weekend.

Mr. Pavitt: Is it not shameful and a disgrace to our people that Great Britain is being seen at this conference as the leader of the "have" nations and refusing to give any concessions whatever to the developing countries? Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that we are now the only nation not accepting the giving of 0·7 per cent. of our gross national product for technical assistance and overseas aid? Will he recall the two Ministers and get the Foreign Secretary to rebrief them about the attitude of the average person of this country to overseas aid?

Mr. Kershaw: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade went there at the beginning and my noble Friend the Minister of State has been there for a week and has made an important contribution to the debate. That attendance of Ministers is far above the average of most other countries. As to the amount of our aid, it is not true that we give only 0·7 per cent. We give 1 per cent. of our gross national product in aid, and this is superior to the performance of most other developed countries.

Mr. Blaker: Is it not to the credit of Her Majesty's Government that in addition to playing a useful role at the current conference they have brought into operation in a very effective way the decisions of previous conferences about the Generalised Preference Scheme? Does not that contrast favourably with the actions of other developed countries, some of which have brought such schemes into effect in only a half-hearted way and others not at all?

Mr. Kershaw: Our Generalised Preference Scheme has been operating since the beginning of the year. We have to keep in step with others. It is not some kind of competition to see which nation can get ahead. In all these very complicated matters, therefore, there is bound to be what must appear to enthusiasts to be rather slow progress; but progress is being made.

Mrs. Hart: Will the hon. Gentleman please pay the House the compliment of understanding what he is talking about when he talks about official figures for overseas aid? The House is perfectly well aware that, apart from America and France, which has hovered between 0·6 per cent. and 0·7 per cent., we are about

the only country which has refused to accept the target. Will he please answer two specific questions as we are now moving into the week of rather crucial decision in Santiago? First, is it the case that Her Majesty's Government abstained on the resolution relating to opening up insurance to developing countries? Second, is it the case that Her Majesty's Government are refusing to support a proposal for the link with special drawing rights by saying that the matter requires further study?

Mr. Kershaw: On the amount of official overseas aid, in common with some other countries we have not accepted that our official aid should be 1 per cent. of gross national product. The right hon. Lady knows that. It is not suitable in our view to tie ourselves down to a proportion between official and private aid. That depends upon the balances in the economy of the donor country. We are largely a private enterprise country. We believe that private enterprise has a great deal to contribute.

Mrs. Hart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have an answer to my two specific questions?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Kershaw: With regard to the detail of the decisions of the conference, which has not yet ended, if the right hon. Lady would be kind enough to table those questions we could answer them in detail. A White Paper will be presented at the end of the conference setting it all out.

Chemical Weapons

Mr. Booth: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government, having rejected the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Government's draft treaty on the abolition of the means of waging chemical warfare, will submit a British draft to the Geneva Conference.

Mr. Godber: Chemical weapons were a major subject of discussion in the recent session of the conference of the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva. The committee is giving the most serious attention to the questions involved in prohibiting these weapons. It is the strongly held view of many delegations, including our


own, that the next step should be expert technical discussions on means of solving the difficulties of definition and verification in a way which would satisfy the requirements of all countries involved.

Mr. Booth: Is it not important that Britain should be seen to favour the widest possible agreement to contain the manufacture, testing and use of these weapons? Could not this usefully be achieved by our proposing a draft to the Geneva Conference? If such an agreement could be reached, it would be not only extremely beneficial but would improve the chances of reaching East-West agreement in Europe for European security.

Mr. Godber: I have given very close attention to this matter. I visited the Geneva Conference just before it went into recess. I have looked at this matter very carefully. We were very glad to support the initiative taken by the previous Government in regard to biological weapons and to bring that to a conclusion. There are other very difficult aspects about chemical weapons, and we are seeking to find ways to solve them. We thought that a meeting of experts would be the best way at this stage, although I do not rule out tabling some text at a later stage if this is appropriate.

Mr. Peter Archer: I appreciate the technical difficulties. Would it not be an earnest of good will on the part of the United Kingdom Government if they now stated unequivocally their acceptance that the Geneva Convention extends to CS gas?

Mr. Godber: The hon. and learned Gentleman raised this point before, and I and others have had to explain to him the complications and problems arising in this matter. I cannot add to the matter at the moment.

Developing Countries (Aid)

Mr. Loveridge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to arrange a conference in the United Kingdom to follow up the third United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and to be particularly related to the encouragement of industrial manufactures in the underdeveloped world.

Mr. Kershaw: I am sure that the international conference which the Society for International Development is organising at Oxford in September, 1973, on the development relationship between Europe and the Third World will give careful attention to this question. There will be full British participation in this conference.

Mr. Loveridge: I appreciate my hon. Friend's reply. Is he aware that the developing countries can never expect to improve their lot by produce of agriculture and commodities alone which at present account for 70 per cent. of their total earning capacity? Up to one-third of their populations is unemployed. They need manufactures. They need trade rather than aid. Britain as a manufacturing nation could set an example by instituting such a conference.

Mr. Kershaw: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Our record in receiving the manufactured articles of developing countries is a good one. There is at present before the House the Overseas Investment and Export Guarantees Bill, and we have introduced other Measures in the last two years to facilitate the further expansion of the manufactures of developing countries.

Directorate of Overseas Surveys

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future work of the Directorate of Overseas Surveys.

Mr. Kershaw: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) on 11th May.—[Vol. 836, c. 426–7.]

Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the running-down of the Directorate of Overseas Surveys by up to one-third of its staff and the transfer of these services to private enterprise will not only cause a great shock among those who support aid services in Britain but will also bring, the Government in for a great deal of criticism? What are the criteria which will be applied to determine which work will stay with the directorate and which will go to private


enterprise? Why are not the Government saying that the directorate will remain in operation after 1979?

Mr. Kershaw: The decision to alter the rôle of the Directorate of Overseas Surveys was taken in pursuance of the Government's policy not to undertake directly within the central Government activities which can be handled outside. We appreciate that a certain amount of anxiety is caused to the staff, but they will bear in mind that this work will go on at least until 1979 and we have been very impressed by the responsible attitude shown by the staff. We hope that redundancy will be avoided so far as possible by normal staff reductions.

Mrs. Hart: Why was it thought appropriate to make this announcement in a Written Answer in the light of the fact that this is one of the minor but very significant bits of hiving-off of the Tory Government? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that what his right hon. Friend has very clearly in mind is that it is the profitable parts which are to be hived off leaving the unprofitable part with the directorate?

Mr. Kershaw: My right hon. Friend was conscious that the decision and the report had been rather long delayed and he was, therefore, anxious that a decision should be given. That is why it has been done in this way. The question of what part will be hived off and what part will not be depends to what extent we find that private mapping resources are capable of undertaking the work which is given to them.

Passport (British Subjects)

Sir D. Walker-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is aware of the difficulty and inconvenience caused in relation to passports by the British Nationality Act, 1948, to British subjects born overseas in former British dominions at a time when their fathers were serving in the British forces; and if he will initiate legislation to ease their position.

Mr. Kershaw: All British subjects applying for passports must produce evidence of their citizenship and it is

not usually difficult to obtain satisfactory documents. I am always willing to examine any specific examples of difficulty that may be put to me.

Legislation on nationality matters is for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: My hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties of the specific case of my constituent which I referred to him and which he considered with his characteristic courtesy and helpfulness. Would it not be possible to suggest to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the British Nationality Act could helpfully be amended simply by incorporating a provision giving British citizenship to people born in territories then comprised within the United Kingdom and colonies whose fathers were in the service of the Crown?

Mr. Kershaw: My right hon. and learned Friend will bear in mind that since 1st January, 1949, a child born overseas to a British Serviceman or other Crown servant who is himself a United Kingdom citizen automatically becomes a United Kingdom citizen. All that we are saying is that the father should prove who he is, because not all servants of the Crown hold United Kingdom citizenship.

Mr. Richard: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the Immigration Act of last year and, indeed, the very offensive concept of patriality which was introduced into the law by that Act causes much more difficulty and offence to British subjects trying to get into the United Kingdom than does the problem raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith)? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that in many countries, particularly in Africa and Asia, the Immigration Act and the concept of patriality which his Government introduced are regarded with very deep misgivings indeed?

Mr. Kershaw: As the hon. and learned Gentleman must know, the problem of patriality is a quite different question from that raised by my right hon. and learned Friend and is, I am thankful to say, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

South Africa (Deported British Subject)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: 38. Mr. Arthur Lewis asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will ask the South African Government why they have deported Mr. Mark Douglas-Home, a British subject, who has committed no criminal offence.

Mr. Kershaw: On 8th May Mr. Douglas-Home was served with an order withdrawing his visa exemption and residence permit and requiring him to leave South Africa by 10th May, 1972. The Government of South Africa have been asked for the reasons for their action.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Under-Secretary aware that, with no disrespect to him, I would have preferred the Foreign Secretary to have replied? Is he hon. Gentleman further aware that this young chappie is a very able, capable and progressive Left-winger who comes from a very good and respectable family and that everyone in the House strongly deplores the fact that a reactionary Government should treat such a wonderful young chap in this way? Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to make a very strong protest, with the full support of the House of Commons?

Mr. Kershaw: This young man sounds very like his uncle. As a country has the right to exclude whomever it pleases, unless a great deal of hardship is involved it would be inappropriate to make a diplomatic protest.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. McMaster (by Private Notice): Mr. McMaster (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the weekend bombing, shooting and other serious civil disorders in Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Channon): The House will have heard with regret of the violence in the West Belfast area over the weekend. The main incident was the explosion outside Kelly's Bar in the Ballymurphy area of Belfast at the junction of the Springfield and Whiterock roads shortly after 5 p.m. on Saturday

evening. A soldier saw a Morris 1100 car parked outside the bar; the two occupants got out and were seen to enter the bar. Approximately eight minutes later the two men left and approached the car, which blew up. The explosion caused injuries, some serious, to 47 people and severe damage to surrounding premises.
During a period of approximately five hours following the incident, 70 separate shooting incidents were recorded. In these incidents, one soldier was killed, two other soldiers were wounded, four civilians were killed and 10 wounded, all as a result of gunfire. It is thought that five gunmen were killed or wounded.
During further incidents on Sunday it is known that one soldier received a minor wound, three civilians were killed and eight wounded. At 8.30 on Sunday evening the Army intervened in the Ballymurphy and Springmartin areas to restore law and order and to prevent sectarian rioting. As soon as this happened, shooting virtually came to a stop and the area has been relatively quiet since.
My right hon. Friend who is, as the House would expect, at present in Belfast will make a further statement to the House later this week.

Mr. McMaster: I thank the Minister of State for his statement, but is he aware that the ordinary law-abiding population in Northern Ireland is aghast that, following the many statements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, shooting like this could break out? The Army claims that some five people were injured, but, in spite of the claim by the Government that there is no such thing as a no-go area, not one body or injured person was recovered by the Army. Unless appropriate steps are taken—not words just spoken about relentless pursuit—to search out these terrorists, to find where they are operating from, to arrest them and to bring them before the law, there is a serious danger of civil war in Northern Ireland. This will lead to far greater loss of life and damage to property than if the Army were to step in properly, take the necessary steps with the reserves that my right hon. Friend last Thursday admitted it has, and act immediately.

Mr. Channon: I am sure the whole House agrees that the incidents of the


weekend are reprehensible and tragic. But the Army took extremely effective action which had the result of dealing with the situation in an effective manner and with complete impartiality. One of the lessons to be drawn from these tragic incidents is that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has repeatedly made clear to the House, when it is necessary to take military measures they will be taken and they will be taken effectively and impartially.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The forces and attitudes revealed over the weekend are not new. They are not the result of policies taken in the last few months, but, rather, they indicate the depth of the problems facing us all in certain parts of Northern Ireland. No words are strong enough to describe those who shoot at ambulance drivers and at those on errands of mercy. Is the Minister of State aware that we support the Army in its peacekeeping tasks, particularly since last evening?

Mr. Channon: I am sure the House shares the hon. Member's view about the attitude and behaviour of the Army, which has had an appalling time during this period. I entirely agree with him in what he says about ambulance drivers and attempts made from time to time to shoot them. This must be deplored by every single hon. Member. As he says, no one in this House is under any illusion about the depth and difficulty of the problem confronting us in Northern Ireland.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Would my hon. Friend the Minister of State make clear and emphasise to the House and to people outside his use of the term "impartiality" in this context, and would he make it clear that, while there is, and should be, impartiality by the forces of the Crown between people of different sects and religions, there is, and should be, no question of impartiality between those who seek to break the law and those who seek to impede it?

Mr. Channon: I entirely accept what my right hon. and learned Friend says, and this is what the Army is doing and what it did extremely effectively last night in Belfast.

Mr. McNamara: Is the Minister of State aware that we all share the horror that is felt about the incident outside

Kelly's Bar and similar events in Northern Ireland, and that we welcome the attitude which was taken by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in his reaction to what happened over the weekend, and also the Minister of State's reaction about it? It would be wrong to allow one terrible incident or a group of terrible incidents to divert the Secretary of State from his policy of seeking to achieve conciliation between the two sections of the community in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Channon: I am grateful for what the hon. Member says. All sections of the House would agree that unless there is reconciliation between the two communities there is no hope whatsoever.

Captain Orr: The events of the weekend are very grave indeed. They show that the hitherto operated policies of the Government have brought about a situation where people, despairing of parliamentary government, are more and more taking to the streets. Would my hon. Friend please be under no illusion, and ask his right hon. Friend to be under no illusion, that some change of direction is required if Northern Ireland is not to go into a gradual descent into anarchy, disorder and bloodshed?

Mr. Channon: I am sure the whole House will agree that the great aim in Northern Ireland must be to create a situation, which it is extremely difficult to create, of reconciliation between the communities. At the same time, as my right hon. Friend has made clear again and again to this House, when it is necessary to take military steps and to pursue those who are breaking the law, from wherever they may come, he will not hesitate in making sure that the most effective military measures are taken, and this is what happened yesterday.

Mr. Orme: The one change we want to see is the change towards a political solution in Northern Ireland, which many of us believe is what the Secretary of State is now pursuing. We would not like to see him pushed off that course by the unfortunate events of the weekend. Can the Minister say to what extent the Protestant community was involved and what part it played in the weekend's unfortunate events, and does it appear that these tragedies are spreading in that direction?

Mr. Channon: I am sorry to tell the House that there was shooting from both the Ballymurphy and the Springmartin estates during the incidents of the weekend. That is a regrettable fact of the weekend's tragedies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is pursuing his policies, which I think have the general support of the House, of seeking reconciliation between the communities, effective military steps, and a proper political solution which will satisfy all parties in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: There is not only a grave situation but a very dangerous one coming about in Belfast, especially in West Belfast. In this area at one time Protestants lived side by side with Roman Catholics in the Ballymurphy estate. They were forced out of that estate across the road to the New Barnsley estate, and now they have been forced out of there to the Springmartin estate. There have been two removals for these people, and they are living in a state of fear.
Can my hon. Friend the Minister of State explain why the Army was removed from the Springmartin estate some weeks ago and why soldiers on duty there were drastically reduced in number, in spite of vigorous protests by the people living in that estate? Would he ensure that the military will not need to move into these districts but will be in them ready to prevent such tragedies as happened at the weekend?
Can the Minister comment on the appearance of a Browning machine gun at an official IRA stop point in a no-go area in Londonderry? Will he not agree that if we are unable to stop people parading guns openly in the streets of Belfast and Londonderry other sections of the community—and I would condemn and deplore their actions—will inevitably rise up and take the law into their own hands? I would warn the House that we are in a very serious position, not a position in which to make party-political points, but one in which we must get down to the business of finding some very urgent solutions.

Mr. Channon: We would all agree with the hon. Member that the situation in Northern Ireland is very serious and has been for some considerable time. The House will concur with him in his con-

demnation of gunmen, wherever they may come from. 1 thank him for his remarks in that connection. As for the detailed questions that he has asked me dealing with this incident, I will ask my right hon. Friend further about this. As I told the House earlier, my right hon. Friend will make a detailed statement later in the week. I will draw his attention to the remarks made by the hon. Member.

Mr. Stallard: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that most of us deplore these incidents, not only of the weekend but of last weekend and all through the week. Like the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I would not want to make any political points out of these unfortunate incidents. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that there appear to he people on both sides in Northern Ireland at the moment with a vested interest in discrediting the political initiative that we think has started there in the past few weeks? Unfortunately, I begin to fear that maybe people in this House are tending to take that kind of view. Is he aware that we deplore this and would certainly want to see a political atmosphere created in which people can work for their aims legitimately? Let us get rid of this violence. I certainly support the aim of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends in any steps they take to try to curb this latest outburst.

Mr. Channon: My right hon. Friend told the House last week that the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland, in every part of the community, desire peace above anything else. As my right hon. Friend also said, there are undoubtedly a small number of people, in the minority, who wish to make this political initiative fail. I believe it to be the collective will of this House that the political initiative of the Government should not fail and must not be allowed to fail.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short business statement.
Following representations during the business exchanges last week, the business


for Thursday has been rearranged as follows:

Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by about seven o'clock.

Afterwards, the remaining stages of the Legal Advice and Assistance Bill.

Motion on the Winter Keep (Scotland) Variation Scheme.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are glad to see him recovered? He could not be in his place last Thursday. He has obviously had a report on the points we put to the Home Secretary. Is he further aware that we feel that he is being entirely realistic in withdrawing from the business of the House this week the Criminal Justice Bill? We fully support the plans for its replacement, although we feel it to be a little unrealistic, as I said on Thursday, to assume that the National Insurance Bill will be concluded by seven o'clock? Does he appreciate that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who will want to make a number of points on it?

Mr. Carr: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his personal remarks. I am glad that I do not have to argue things because I am not sure how long my voice will last. I am happy to be able to concur with the right hon. Gentleman, and I take note of what he has said about the business.

Mr. Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while the business which is replacing the Criminal Justice Bill on Thursday is of importance, some of us feel that the situation in Northern Ireland is proceeding at such a rate that we hope he will feel sympathetic towards any request that we should be debating Northern Ireland later this week if it seemed appropriate?

Mr. Carr: Naturally, I take note of what my hon. Friend has said, but I would be wrong to make any undertaking of any kind about this. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State has made clear, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State

for Northern Ireland will be making a further statement later in the week.

Mr. Wilson: While not wishing to strain the larynx or pharynx of the right hon. Gentleman any further—I shall be happy to take a nod from him—can I assume, since he has shown by his statement that he has studied what we on this side said to the Home Secretary about this Thursday's business, that he has studied with equal care the other things we said, including our request for a debate in Government time on the steel industry?

Mr. Carr: If I may say so without commitment, I have read every word that was said.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Captain Orr: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the put-pose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the tragic events at the weekend in Northern Ireland and the need for an immediate change in the policy of the Government to prevent further widespread disorder and loss of life.
I will not weary the House with the arguments why this application should be granted. The events of the weekend show some new features which ought to be discussed. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said that he is not at present disposed towards having a debate this week, although he has told us that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be making a statement. Nevertheless, a statement and questions are not sufficient to deal with a matter of this gravity, nor with the essential urgency of it. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to grant this application.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss the situation in Northern Ireland. I have considered what he has said, and I have also had regard to the exchanges which have taken place earlier this afternoon. I am afraid I cannot grant the application.

VIETNAM

Leave having been given on Thursday, 11th May, under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss:
the serious potential danger to world peace involved in the present situation in Indo-China and on the high seas surrounding Vietnam.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
This Adjournment debate takes place against the background of grave dangers to international peace in South-East Asia. Ever since the end of the Second World War South-East Asia has been one of the most dangerous areas for international peace and one which all countries and all statesmen must treat with the greatest possible care. It is for those reasons of international danger that this discussion must take place.
I do not want to begin with that point. I want instead to begin with a point that has to do with individual human beings, that has to do with the people of Vietnam. We are becoming far too accustomed to reading calmly about the bombing operations of the biggest military power in the world against population centres such as Hanoi and Haiphong and other parts of Vietnam. We are becoming far too accustomed to the general idea that there can be any possible moral right whatever—I will come to the legal position later—on the part of a major power to engage in such bombing.
It has always been the view of people in the Labour Party, whatever other views we might have had on detailed diplomatic matters, that we must strongly oppose the bombing of population centres by the United States Air Force in Vietnam. We have affirmed this at many party conferences and on other occasions.
The legal position is equally important. First, the United States had no right to impose a blockade on the independent Republic of North Vietnam, nor did it ever have any title or right, and it does not have it now, to bomb the Republic of North Vietnam.
It is a singular fact that at no time during the years in which this tragic conflict has been going on have the United

States Government gone to the United Nations and asked for a mandate. At no time have they made the attempt to get international peace-keeping organisations behind them. The reason is obvious: it is more than doubtful that the Security Council would at any time have given its support to them.
I come to recent events. In particular, there is an urgent need to contradict the propaganda of our Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary's complete identification, in his inadequate statements, with Mr. Nixon's policy. I wish to establish first that this complete identification misrepresents the opinions of many people in this country.

Mr. Russell Kerr: The majority.

Mr. Mendelson: There is no such identification in the land. Even those who may not wish to join in complete condemnation of these acts have no wish to be identified with Mr. Nixon's policy. The Foreign Secretary has completely misrepresented opinion in this country.
The second point I wish to establish concerns the justification of my submission about the dangers involved. American opinion is more alarmed perhaps than any other opinion outside the United States. The New York Times, in a leading article on Wednesday, 10th May, said:
The mining of the harbours of North Vietnam poses a direct challenge to the Soviet Union and other arms suppliers to Hanoi that could quite possibly escalate into a confrontation between the world's two great superpowers. Only the gravest threat to the security of the United States could justify such a challenge, as was indeed the case in the Cuban missile crisis, but Vietnam is not Cuba; and there is no conceivable American interest at stake in Indochina today as there was in Cuba to warrant the risk—and the escalation—the President has so clearly undertaken.
This is the view of the New York Times, and it was echoed in the United States Senate where a clear majority of members are completely opposed to the President's policy, and, as is known, the Senate is taking steps, through its majority, to curtail the supply of finance to the President.
It is argued in legal circles in the United States that, in view of past resolutions, the President is already acting illegally and unconstitutionally. This is all the more reason for condemning the


Foreign Secretary for so hastily ranging himself behind the President in a situation in which it is unclear whether the law is against Mr. Nixon.
I come to the situation which has brought about the blockade. We have been treated to a propaganda barrage. The President, in his speech which some of us heard at two o'clock the other morning, made an appeal to the conscience of mankind. At the same time, he kept talking about "the enemy". He has never declared war on Vietnam. He has never taken legal steps to declare Vietnam an enemy and himself the enemy of the other side. Nor have the American institutions, as the only people entitled to make a declaration of war, ever been asked for such a declaration. It is well known that, without Congressional authority, no American President has the right to be at war, and Mr. Nixon has never submitted the necessary resolution to the United States Congress.
It is equally important to establish the facts on the possibilities of negotiation. The Foreign Secretary again and again, at the Dispatch Box and outside the House, has engaged in propaganda statements instead of giving the House and the country the facts, as it is his duty to do as the principal officer in the Government concerned with foreign affairs. I pray in aid not just my opinion but the opinion of a man who is well known to statesmen and people in this country; namely, Mr. Averell Harriman, who was the United States official negotiator at the Paris conference for several years. He was first the negotiator for President Johnson and then, in a short carry-over period, for the United States Government after the election defeat of the Democrats.
Mr. Harriman commented this week in consequence of the latest escalation. It is urgent that hon. Members, before making their decision tonight, should know what Mr. Harriman says, speaking from the inside and with the authority of a past official spokesman in the negotiations for the United States Government. I quote from an article published this week under the headline "Time to negotiate":
President Thieu sabotaged the talks
in Paris
from the very outset. Although he had agreed in October, 1968, to join the negotiations after the bombing stopped, he first reneged on his commitment and then created the undignified

dispute over the shape of the table in order to break up or at least delay talks until the new Nixon administration took office.
Mr. Harriman further says:
Thieu saw his primary goal as maintaining his personal position. This meant opposing a negotiated solution since any compromise would inevitably have eliminated his power.
I do not want to weary the House with too much quotation, but Mr. Harriman went on to put on record his considered inside opinion that there had been several opportunities to negotiate a political solution since 1968 which were sabotaged by the military dictator in Saigon. We have heard nothing of this from the Foreign Office. We have heard none of this evidence from the Foreign Secretary. We have had a wholly one-sided, deliberately biased account of recent events at the negotiating table. Only through the opportunity of this debate will the House be able to establish the facts. There are not only many hon. Members on this side of the House but, to my certain knowledge, hon. Members opposite, who have spoken to me privately, who are seriously worried about the situation. [Interruption.] Members who make sneering interruptions are wholly unrepresentative of opinion even among right hon. and hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Peter Rost: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mendelson: Not yet. I am deliberately putting this on record—

Mr. Rost: Mr. Rost rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very short debate.

Mr. Mendelson: I am deliberately putting this point on record because we all know that if this policy were to go seriously wrong this country, as a major ally of the United States, would have to consider its position. This is therefore a matter of equal importance to all sides.
I turn to the possibilities for negotiation which, in my opinion, exist today and which have existed throughout. I would not have imposed on the time of the House if I had merely intended to make a declaration or a denunciation because there are other ways and means of doing it. What we have to do is to


get our Government out of their one-sided position. We have a duty to make proposals to them as to what might still be done. In my submission, the key to the situation has always been in Saigon, and the key to the dangers which surround the position now is the reluctance and the refusal of the United States Government to allow for a solution in Saigon which would make doubtful the political future of M. Thieu. That is the key to the failure of the negotiations which we have not often heard details about.
What is possible, what ought to be possible still now, is this. There are, to the certain knowledge of many hon. Members of this House, people in Saigon today and throughout South Vietnam who want an agreed peaceful solution. It is untrue to say that in South Vietnam today they are either pro-Communists or supporters of the military régime. There are many people in between. I have myself had contacts, and so have other Members of this House, with representatives of the Buddhist movement, some of their official representatives in Western Europe. The Government must have some of these contacts, though we have never heard from the Government that there might be another opinion which could be consulted and worked with out there.
There have been possibilities of some of these people coming forward, but they have not come forward because of the repressive character of the régime in Saigon and the danger to such people if they were to come forward. I pray in aid a cardinal case as an example of this kind. In the last presidential election in which there was a contested election the most notable candidate running against the President was Mr. Dzu, a lawyer in Saigon and a member of Parliament. That candidate said during his election campaign, which was fraught with difficulties and dangers for him, that if he were elected he would open talks with the Government in Hanoi to see whether there could be an emerging consensus of opinion which would discuss with the Americans the end of the American military presence there and some solution of the all-Vietnam problem. He also said that if he were elected president he would want Vietnam to be militarily non-aligned and would want to

discuss with the leaders in Hanoi such a policy that South Vietnam should be militarily non-aligned.
That candidate got 28 per cent. of the total vote, and, indeed, that was a very considerable achievement, considering that the President in office at the time had all the propaganda machinery and the police and powers of repression at his disposal.
What happened to that candidate? The day after he received 28 per cent. of the votes he was put in prison, and he is in prison today. So what did other people do? In the last election some of those who had contemplated running for the presidency, one a very prominent leader of the Buddhist community and a man of considerable experience, did not dare to run because they knew that if they ran a campaign and declared what they might want to do if they were elected in the democratic process they would only go into prison, just as happened to Mr. Dzu. That was why there was only one candidate in the last election and he was elected unopposed.
These are the facts which have prevented any movement towards peace in Vietnam.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: How many elections have there been in the North?

Mr. Mendelson: What has prevented any move towards negotiations is all the repression in the South of any of those people who might wish to come forward to take part in serious negotiations in Saigon. This is the key to the position today. Mr. Harriman affirms, and urged this week, that the President should now start negotiations in Paris and allow the National Liberation Front to take part, and that in those negotiations it should be arranged that there should be a form of new Government in Saigon and that in that Government those who take different views should all be included. This the President of the United States has never agreed to. This is why there has been stalemate in the negotiations in Paris. In spite of all the blustering in the President's speech the other night, he gave a completely misleading account of what had happened at the Paris negotiations, and from our own Foreign Secretary we have never had at any time a proper account of what went on there.

Mr. Rost: Tell us about the invasion.

Mr. Mendelson: There may be many possibilities now. I do not believe it is too late to start serious negotiations going. I therefore want to make these proposals to the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. Before he comes to his next point, would he, on the last matter he was dealing with, care to say whether in his view there are in North Vietnam large numbers of people who are in favour of the immediate cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of their own army from the South?

Mr. Mendelson: The point about the attitude of North Vietnam is that most of the people there believe that they ate one country. [Interruption.] We must not be upset by anybody laughing on the other side of the House. This is a serious question and I want to give a serious answer. At the Geneva Conference, in which the British Government and M. Mendès-France, as the hon. Member will know, at the time played a leading part, a decision was made which involved agreeing to a unified Vietnam and that that should be brought about by democratic elections held in South Vietnam. That was the agreement.

Mr. Rost: What about the North?

Mr. Mendelson: That was the agreement. Our then Foreign Secretary, now Lord Avon, and M. Mendès-France signed this agreement. President Eisenhower said he did not want these elections to be held because he did not believe that his side, by which he meant those who supported United States foreign policy, would win the election. Therefore, he prevented that. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman. I ask my hon. Friends not to be disturbed by hon. Members opposite. We are going to have this debate and we are going to bring it to a vote at the end, no matter what sneers there may be from the other side of the House.
I was reaching the point where I wanted to make a number of suggestions and urge a certain course of action upon the Foreign Secretary. What I want to urge upon him is to make representations in Washington against the bombing of population centres in Vietnam. I ask

him to do that—he has never done it—immediately and to tell the House of Commons what the response of the President of the United States would be.
Secondly, I would urge the Foreign Secretary to get together with the Governments of France, Canada, Norway and Denmark, all allies of the United Kingdom, all friends and allies of the United States of America, and make joint representations in Washington for the end of the blockade which the President has just imposed, and to get rid of the dangers to international peace which are involved in this blockade. The Governments of the countries I have mentioned—this is why I have selected them—have already made statements pointing in the same direction, and so the Foreign Secretary would find open ears in the Cabinets of those countries if he were to follow this suggestion.
Having made this joint approach in Washington, the Government should then, jointly with the same five countries, make an approach to the Government of the Soviet Union. So far the Foreign Secretary has made only propaganda approaches to Mr. Gromyko. He has made no serious approach, nor any serious effort which would show that he really feels that the Government do not want to adopt a one-sided position.
Having undertaken the two steps I have suggested, the Government should then, with the Governments of the five other countries I have mentioned, make a joint approach to Moscow to see whether—not necessarily by reviving the formal functioning of the Geneva Conference by acting as residual powers for the Geneva Conference which technically is still in existence—with the United States and the Soviet Union they can start new and more serious negotiations in Paris.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) think that anything like this could possibly happen while the invading forces of North Vietnam are rampaging through the South?

Mr. Mendelson: All I am saying is that I take my counsel from Mr. Harriman and the majority of the United States Senate, rather than from the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) on what is still possible for the United States


and other countries in this situation. I am happy in the thought that in the end it will not be the hon. Member for Cannock who will decide what is or is not possible.
Fourthly, the Government should consult the United Nations to see whether, in view of the general danger to peace, the United Nations can be brought into play. I know that the difficulty in the past, which I have accepted, is that the people most directly concerned when they have been privately consulted by the past Secretary-General of the United Nations—and some of us have talked to U Thant about it and know this to be true—have told U Thant that they do not wish the matter to be brought before the United Nations. The point has now been reached where that attitude is not a sufficient justification for allowing the United Nations to remain completely outside this dangerous conflict. The time has come when it is legitimate for the British Foreign Secretary to make such an approach to the Secretary-General, with the knowledge of the powers involved.
One of the main purposes for which the United Nations was created was to deal with situations that might lead to a breach of international peace. It is clear from the debates that led to its foundation that it was never assumed that the United Nations must be precluded from looking at a matter merely because the powers most directly concerned were opposed to such action or thought that it would not be useful. That is completely outside the spirit of the United Nations. This is a matter of judgment, and the time has come for the Government to judge that such an approach should be made.
This is very much a matter for the House of Commons. Many hon. Members have firm opinions, and it is important that those opinions should be expressed. I therefore move to my conclusion by saying that there are internationally a number of hopeful moves ahead for the preservation of world peace and that they are in danger. We have no reason to believe the sunshine stories that come from some circles in Washington telling us that this makes no difference or suggesting a secret deal. There can be no deal acceptable to hon. Members

that leads to the destruction of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese lives. I should not be the least impressed if there had been a nod or a wink between Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Brezhnev. We are here concerned not only with great power politics; we are concerned with the lives of individual human beings in small nations.
The House of Commons tonight has an opportunity to side with those in the United States Senate and the House of Representatives who say that this war is destroying American influence abroad and tearing America apart at home. That is the witness of many distinguished Americans. The House of Commons by its vote tonight, can show that the Foreign Secretary's identification with President Nixon is not the only voice in Britain. The House of Commons can stand with Senator McGovern, Senator Fulbright and many others on the side of the traditions of the American people.

4.15 p.m.

Sir Gilbert Longden: In my short speech in this short debate I have no time to do more than underline what I believe to be some essential dates, statements and facts which have to do with this tragic situation. In the process I shall refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson).
I first remind the House that our American allies and their allies, who are also ours—the Australians and New Zealanders—are in danger of defeat and humiliation in South-East Asia. How, if they are defeated, which is by no means certain, that will benefit any of us here is quite beyond my comprehension. Unlike the hon. Member for Penistone, I believe that they are fighting our battlies and that they are entitled to our moral support in their hour of trial. I say "moral" support because we bore our fair share of the burden of South-East Asia in Malaya and then in Malaysia.
The "escalation" of which we hear so much has resulted from the North Vietnamese invasion of South Vietnam. There has never been any condemnation of the Soviet Union and China pouring arms and armaments into North Vietnam; the only "military dictator" of whom we ever hear tell is President Thieu—never the ruler of North Vietnam. How


many elections have been held there? The hon. Member talks about the rights of individual human beings in small nations and forgets altogether, or is careless of, the rights of individual human beings in South Vietnam.
In 1954 the then Mr. Eden played a distinguished part in negotiating a de facto settlement at Geneva whereby Vietnam was divided into two at the 17th Parallel between the Communists and those Vietnamese who did not wish to live under a Communist regime. It may be noted that over one million Vietnamese moved south over that line—as seems to be the habit of the subjects of Communist Governments who are not prevented from doing so by minefields and walls.
There followed a period of comparative peace. Then, in 1959, when there were only 700 Americans in South Vietnam, the North Vietnamese Government incited the Viet Cong to attack the South Vietnamese Government, and aided the Viet Cong with arms and men. That was confirmed by the International Control Commission of India, Canada and Poland in 1962. Since then, not only the demarcation line which was agreed at Geneva, but also the international frontiers of Laos and Cambodia have been consistently violated from the north, and that is why I asked my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary a few days ago to remind us—and especially to remind some hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway—who is invading whom.
In August, 1964, the United States Congress, with only two dissentient votes, authorised United States participation in the collective defence of South Vietnam.
Let the Americans give their reasons:
…the United States has solemn commitments to aid South Vietnam; we will keep our pledge to assist South Vietnam as we would assist other nations with whom we have similar commitments…we believe that nations, large and small, have the right to chart their own destinies without the threat of external force and interference.
One of the most important provisions of SEATO—the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation—
states that 'each party recognises that aggression by means of armed attack in the Treaty area would endanger its own peace and safety', and in that event would 'act to meet the common danger'.
And let us all remember that a Protocol, signed and approved with the Treaty,

expressly extended this provision to the non-Communist States of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
The American apologia continues:
We seek only to help the South Vietnamese people to control their own destiny, determine their own future, lead their own lives as they choose and not as imposed by Hanoi. We do not seek to overthrow or destroy the Government of North Vietnam"—
or acquire any territory whatever.
We are determined to prevent its aggression from succeeding.
That was from the document, "Vietnam in Perspective", published in 1968, explaining and expanding America's "14 Points" of January, 1966.
On 30th April, 1970, President Nixon's Address on the situation in South-East Asia contained these words:
Whether my party gains in November is nothing to the lives of 400,000 Americans fighting for our country and the cause of peace and freedom in South Vietnam. Whether I may be a one-term President is insignificant compared to whether by our failure to act in this crisis, the United States proved itself to be unworthy to lead the forces of freedom in this critical period. I would rather be a one-term President than to be a two-term President at the cost of seeing America become a second-rate Power and this nation accept the first defeat in its proud 190-year history.
One cannot but agree with what was said by Professor Headlam-Morley in her letter to The Times on Saturday, that it is "malicious and ignorant nonsense" of The Times correspondent in Washington to
…attribute to 'presidential vanity' the American belief that they had a mission and a duty to defend free countries against totalitarian domination and aggression…
And, like her, I am
…thankful to The Times for enlisting the good sense of Bernard Levin…
in the immediately adjacent column.
On 14th February, 1967, the present Leader of the Opposition, then Prime Minister, told the House:
Trust has got to be built up. For my part, if this needs saying, I accept 100 per cent. American sincerity to negotiate for peace.…Those of us who have a role to play in this matter have a duty…to remember above all that our objective is not to strike allegedly moral postures or to make unhelpful denunciatory declarations-our objective is to secure peace."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1967; Vol. 741, c. 347.]
I believe that that needs saying again, and by the right hon. Gentleman.
If South Vietnam falls it will not be long before Laos and Cambodia go the same way; and who is to say that Thailand, Burma or Malaysia will long remain in freedom? Do we care?
But the future of the war in Vietnam will not be decided by anything we say in this House unless and until we can get Mr. Gromyko to play his part in reconvening the Geneva Conference, and why my right hon. Friend should be accused of not having taken every possible step, and with the utmost sincerity, to get Mr. Gromyko's agreement I just cannot understand.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If the Burmese believe in the domino theory, why is it that they criticise the Americans and have increasingly good relations with the Chinese?

Sir Gilbert Longden: I cannot speak for the Burmese Government. All I asked was, who is to say that Thailand, Burma and Malaysia may not go the same way? I certainly cannot say: for all I know, the Burmese Government may want to go that way.
If the Americans are in the event defeated, which God forbid, it will be largely due to their mass media, to such newspapers as the New York Times and to their quisling senators—

Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to describe members of the American Senate, some of whom are running for presidential nomination, as quislings? Is that a statement to be allowed in this House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): There is nothing expressly about it in the rules of order but remarks of this kind should be governed by what is good taste. I do not think that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden) meant anything to which one could take violent exception—not so far, at any rate.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Then, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will quote the word "quisling".
These enemies within their gates think nothing of stabbing their own country in the back at a time when their own troops

are engaged in mortal combat in a foreign field; and of giving what must be immense aid and comfort to their country's other enemies. What possible hope can there be of success at the Paris peace talks when all the North Vietnamese hope to gain is being gained for them by their friends within the citadel itself?
Although I said that nothing we can say here is likely to affect the outcome of the war, I most certainly believe that we should wish our American allies Godspeed, and express the hope that their good intentions may soon succeed. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will do just that.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I will be fairly brief. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) is to be congratulated on initiating the debate, although I am by no means convinced that it will justify a vote at the end. [Interruption] If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is so anxious to make a contribution I will give way, and perhaps he will allow other people to interrupt him.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are typical of the wishy-washy attitude of the Liberals. I personally am a bit fed up with the Liberals. They never declare where they stand on anything, and what the hon. Gentleman says is a typical waste of time.

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member will be happy to learn that I am getting fed up with him, too.

Mr. Heffer: That is all right with me.

Mr. Johnston: Perhaps I may say that if it is the hon. Gentleman's intention merely to use simple abuse instead of argument he might at least wait until I have said more because, unlike him, I find, as a Liberal, that it is very difficult in situations of this kind to make the sort of quick, instant moral judgments that many people are very fond of making. Nor does the fact that one hears categoric judgments one way or the other from one side or the other make it any easier to make these instant decisions. I do not find it easy in any event.
I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the Liberal view on Vietnam had been wishy-washy. He might care to look


at what we have said about it, and have said for a very long time. He might even look at my last speech on the subject. He will find that, very far from being wishy-washy, we have taken the position for a very long time now that the Americans in their initial action in 1954, to which reference has already been made by the hon. Member for Penistone, were wrong, and that much of the horror which has followed stemmed from that wrong decision.
The question we must ask ourselves, however, is: what precisely is the position now? The Americans clearly intend to leave Vietnam if they can. They want to get out if they can. In my speech in the debate on the intervention in Cambodia in 1970 I said:
The basic issue we face is…whether America stays in Vietnam or not. We in the Liberal Party believe that she is wrong to stay there, and that she must, as quickly as she can, seek to extricate herself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1970; Vol. 801, c 229.]
That was the view we took then, and it is the view we take now.
However, one must ask certain questions relevant to this debate and the way in which the hon. Member for Penistone raised it. If the objective is that the Americans shall leave Vietnam, in simple terms why did the North Vietnamese launch their offensive? It is an apt question to ask, and it was put clearly in The Guardian editorial of 3rd May. It said:
The most tragic victims of this offensive are the Vietnamese themselves.…The North Vietnamese bear much of the blame for this because of their invasion. Apparently the temptation to humiliate the Americans before they were out of the way was too great. The American reaction was predictable. The timing of the invasion has increased the number of civilian casualties.
That is a factor to which I do not know the answer. The hon. Member for Penistone did not provide it. The negotiations were proceeding in Paris, admittedly in an off-on way, but they were proceeding, and the Americans were undoubtedly withdrawing and the North was not being threatened.

Mr. Mendelson: The answer is provided by Mr. Averell Harriman, who has written:
Today, it is more obvious than ever that there is no alternative to the negotiation of a compromise settlement, although we must

recognise that we are now dealing from our weakest position. While negotiations have been going on, this administration has never accepted the concept of a neutral nonaligned South nor has it given up its futile attempt to maintain a pro-American government in Saigon.
That is the reason for continuation of military activities.

Mr. Johnston: I do not think that it is an adequate reason. I accept that the American record in Vietnam is to maintain the sort of situation the hon. Gentleman has referred to, but I also argue, with justification, that American policy was clearly being directed away from such a position and that the objective of the Americans was to extricate themselves. Nevertheless, they must inevitably have some regard for the position of South Vietnam.
Something has been said about South Vietnam being a dictatorship. I would be the last to defend the situation in Vietnam. I would not particularly like to live under South Vietnam or under North Vietnam very much. But let us not start being "holier than thou" about this. The situation in neither country is particularly admirable. While it may be true that Mr. Dzu is in prison after obtaining 28 per cent. of the votes, he did at least obtain 28 per cent. The situation in North Vietnam has not been such that any opposing candidate could take any percentage of the votes at all.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that if anyone even tried to intimate that he wanted to set up against the Government of North Vietnam, instead of waiting until the votes were counted before putting him into prison the North Vietnamese Government would put him into prison immediately the thought of any opposition to them became known?

Mr. Johnston: I do not want to give way again because I have only a few more comments to make and I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. We all have our knowledge about the different systems in the world with which we are dealing, and I do not think that comment on them would be particularly useful here.
One of the main arguments I heard adduced by hon. Members behind me


during the reception given to some remarks by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden) was that this was not an offensive by North Vietnam because Vietnam is one country. That may be exactly right, but it is also not exactly right at the same time. One can equally say that Germany is one country, East and West, but the position that Herr Brandt is taking is to seek recognition of the Oder-Neisse line and the reality of the two Germanys. Since there is a situation where, on the one hand, there is a Communist Government in North Vietnam and, on the other hand, an attempt, though not a very good attempt, at democratic government in South Vietnam, I do not really see that the position of permanent division of the country is other than realistic at present.
It is because, as I have said, I believe that the Americans, in seeking to withdraw, have been forced to take what many would regard rightly as quite excessive action, that I am not really in a position utterly to condemn them. Nor, for that matter, am I in a position to condemn the British Government, for they have not yet spoken. One needs to hear what they have to say. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Penistone. I believe that it would be better for the Government to take this to the United Nations. I believe also that, while Russia apparently is determined to prevent the reconvening of the Geneva Conference, there should be possibilities in doing something with the International Commission in co-operation with Canada, India and Poland. But certainly I think that for us to take an over-righteous view at this juncture in an immensely difficult situation—particularly when I still believe President Nixon to be going to Moscow with the hope of reaching some accord—would not be helpful.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is almost exactly two years, as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) has just reminded us, since we were—also on a Motion for the Adjournment—discussing the affairs of Vietnam in the context of the American initiative in Cambodia, an initiative which, at the time, so we were

told, was designed to facilitate the disengagement of the American forces. That was two years ago. It is four years ago since the United States Administration recognised the necessity of extricating their forces from South-East Asia and announced as their national policy that it was their intention at all reasonable speed to withdraw the American forces from South Vietnam. It is six years at least—indeed, more than six years—since it was widely predicted that that was bound to be the outcome of the American operations in South Vietnam.
I recall myself in a speech in the General Election of 1966 referring to the fact that the American forces were grinding deeper and deeper into the morass of South Vietnam; and that was by no means the earliest date at which quite publicly the futility of the American military attempt had been recognised. Now we are again, in 1972, debating yet another major military operation attempted by the American forces, including a blockade of North Vietnam and renewed attack upon the major cities of North Vietnam.
It is the predictability of this struggle which in some ways has added over the years to its horrors—the unchanging nature of the basic realities of the struggle in Vietnam and of the American involvement in it.
In the debate two years ago the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart), who was then Foreign Secretary, stated:
Throughout that conflict it has been the view of Her Majesty's Government…that neither side could achieve, or should seek to achieve, an outright military victory or a 100 per cent. military solution.…both sides…should work for…an agreed and negotiated solution…we have said time and again that a search for a 100 per cent. military victory or solution by either side would fail".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1970; Vol. 801, c. 215.]
The right hon. Gentleman was dead wrong. There is a 100 per cent. military solution. The overhanging reality in South-East Asia is that a military solution is not within reach for the United States, but that it is within reach, is available, and will be reached by the opponents of the United States. Precisely when, and precisely how, is not capable of prediction; but the certainty now, as it was


two, four, six and more years ago, is that the military power and the military success lie on one side and not on the other. It was in the light of that fact—disagreeable enough not only for the United States but, I should have thought, for those on both sides of this House, broadly speaking—that we are duty-bound to conduct these debates and to offer the best counsel we can.
The United States Administration no longer make any secret about their military objective. Their objective today, as it has been for the last four years, is a successful disengagement from their military involvement in South-East Asia. It is explicitly in the interest of that objective that they have engaged upon the operations which are the occasion of this emergency debate.
The same statement has to be made about those military operations as has been made about the previous operations and has in each case proved to be well founded; that they will turn out to be futile. Nothing which is being done by the United States forces, either in the attempted blockade of North Vietnam or in the air attack upon the cities of North Vietnam, will in any way assist the United States in disengaging their forces. If anything, it will make it more difficult for them to do so and will make the concluding stages of their opposed embarkation more difficult and more tragic.

Sir Gilbert Longden: My right hon. Friend has been a distinguished soldier. He knows that the President of the United States is also Commander-in-Chief of the United States Forces. Would he not condemn any commander-in-chief who did not attempt to stop reinforcements of men and munitions reaching his enemy?

Mr. Powell: The question is whether one can do it and what methods one chooses. Over the years, in council with my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have explained, and been proved to be right, that the methods by which the United States sought to interfere with the maintenance by North Vietnam of the Vietcong's and its own operations in South Vietnam would prove to be futile; and futile they have turned out to be. As my hon. Friend mentioned, it is upon the basis of one's experience in the

Second World War—it was a costly experience in human lives—that one is entitled to predict in a context of this sort the futility of the attempted interdiction at such long range of base installations and supply routes.

Mr. James Callaghan: Is there not another military maxim: never reinforce failure?

Mr. Powell: That is another aspect to it.

Mr. John Wilkinson: And the diminishing power of the offensive.

Mr. Powell: We can go through all the principles of war in the Field Service Manual; but we shall still be left with the overshadowing fact, demonstrated over and over again by the war in South-East Asia, the fact which officially and as a matter of national policy the United States has recognised, that they are obliged to disengage as best they can from their military involvement in South-East Asia. That is the reason why the so-called peace negotiations are so futile—it is because, given time, one side holds all the cards and the other side holds none.
Though I thought the House was in the debt of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) for ensuring that we had this debate—it was right that we should have it—I dissented from his, in my view, altogether optimistic and unrealistic notion that any combination of negotiators would bring about in South-East Asia the kind of compromise under cover of which the United States would be able to disengage. It is crude military reality which, in the last resort, will decide the time and the circumstances in which the last American forces will be obliged to quit South-East Asia.
However, we do not hold these debates for the sake of debating. It is a principle of this House that we debate only those things in which Her Majesty's Government have some degree of responsibility. We are holding this debate this afternoon only because there are actions and attitudes which Her Majesty's Government can take or refrain from; and the practical advice we have to try to offer is what those attitudes and actions should be.
Against the background of these last six or eight years, I venture to offer two points of counsel. First, this House, and in particular Her Majesty's Government, should not say anything and should not strike any attitudes inconsistent with the underlying reality of military defeat which the United States has incurred and which involves it in the necessity of military extrication. In particular, I hope we shall not constantly attempt to resurrect the ghost of the co-chairman-ship. That is the extreme of unrealism. In 1954 Britain was still one of the powers, though a diminishing power, in South-East Asia. The reason we were co-chairman with the Soviet Union was that we had some real power and presence in South-East Asia. Today we have none. We have not even the pretence of such a power. To continue to invoke the shadow of the events of 18 years ago is a constant invitation to unrealism.
Unrealism in South-East Asia has been one of the causes of the prolongation of the tragedy. If the underlying facts had been recognised sooner there would have been less loss of human life and the horrors of South-East Asia would have been shorter in their duration. So the first thing is that Her Majesty's Government has a duty to recognise in their attitudes and words both Britain's own impotence in this matter and the military reality which the United States is facing.
The second thing is what advice we are to give the United States. Very often the best advice between friends is given privately. Advice publicly given is liable to be embarrassing; and the better the advice, the more embarrassing it is liable to be, and the less the chance of its acceptance.
Therefore, I should not call for any specific response from my right hon. Friend to what I am about to say; but I express the hope that Her Majesty's Government in their dealings with the United States Administration will do everything in their power to assist them to recognise that by their present methods they are not facilitating what must be the eventual end of American policy in South-East Asia but are, indeed, acting against it; that militarily as well as politically—to say nothing of morally—American action, and the current American action,

is utterly counter-productive from their own point of view.
Let them say that to our American friends, not publicly, but let them say it privately; and let them offer on behalf of the Government, on behalf of this House and, I believe, on behalf of this country, all the assistance we can give in the healing of the deep blow to American pride and the immense damage to America's power and prestige for good which can only be the result, however speedily extrication is achieved, of the last eight years in South-East Asia.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Latham: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) for introducing two important strands of reality into the debate—first, in facing the military facts of life which so many of his hon. Friends seem unable to accept or understand. Secondly, in relation to the Co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, I think we ought to recognise that this is now a dead duck, not only in terms of a British role but in terms of the Geneva Agreement itself which has been breached in so many respects.
I was appalled at the reaction on the benches opposite both at Question Time today and when my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) was opening the debate this afternoon. I can only assume that the attitudes revealed are based much more on prejudice than on any knowledge of the facts. Most hon. Gentlemen opposite would choose to condemn anyone on this side of the House who appeared, from any remarks that he made, to be pro-Soviet. It is equally wrong to adopt an anti-Soviet posture on all occasions, and on this issue it seems that so many hon. Gentlemen opposite, with their catcalls at Question Time on this issue, are not only pro-United States but are more pro-Nixon than the United States people themselves and, sadly, more in favour of military escalation in Indo-China than even the United States Administration itself.
I was shocked not only by the visit of some Members of the Monday Club to the American Embassy on Friday, but by the terms of the Early Day Motion on this matter which some hon. Gentlemen


opposite had put down, in which they declare that Great Britain would always side in international affairs with the English-speaking peoples. One has often heard the Tory approach, "My country right or wrong" but it now says that is extended to "My allies, right or wrong", and hon. Gentlemen opposite seem incapable of discussing objectively the merits of policies pursued by those whom they regard as their allies.
I apologise if the few facts which I want to place on record are already only too well known by my hon. Friends and perhaps by just one or two on the benches opposite, including the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. They are not facts which, it seems, are known by most hon. Gentlemen opposite or, one supposes from some of the answers given at Question Time, even by the Foreign Secretary.
In their approach to this matter hon. Gentlemen opposite talk as though there is a long-established, well-established separate nation State both in North Vietnam and in South Vietnam. They speak as though there are long traditions of, or even recently-established, democratic institutions in the southern part of Vietnam. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden) went further than Grosvenor Square for his hand-out of President Nixon's view. If he were to take his research a little further he might find many instances which would indicate the nature of the so-called freedom which he proclaims to be defending in Southern Vietnam. Perhaps one of the instances which he might find in the course of his researches is the ruthless persecution of the Buddhists in 1963. I do not know whether he is aware of that, or whether he regards it as evidence of even the embryo of a future democracy.
If there were more time for the debate it would be interesting to dwell on the reference again to this so-called freedom which it is alleged would need to be defended in Thailand, in Burma, in Laos and in Cambodia.

Mr. Cormack: Has the hon. Gentleman been to South Vietnam? Is he aware that 500,000 people are fleeing from the armies of the North because they believe that they have a vestige of freedom in South Vietnam, where some of us have been?

Mr. Latham: I regret that the hon. Gentleman did not gain more enlightenment from his visit. I should not have thought that it required much imagination to know why civilians flee from bombs, whoever may be dropping them—bombardment by North Vietnamese divisions or by American ships off the Vietnamese coast. There is no sensible, political conclusion to be drawn from that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the countries in which he wants to defend freedom, but he seems strangely unwilling to allow the New York Times to exercise the very freedom which he claims to be defending in these other parts of Asia. I should like, in passing, to place on record some facts for the sake of those on the other side of the House who seem never to have been aware of them. Indo-China has a history of centuries of Chinese domination until the 16th century. It has a history of French domination from the 16th century. It has a history of Japanese invasion and conquest during the 1939–45 period. It may also be said that the Japanese declared the independence of Indo-China in 1945, and at that time allowed the Vietminh to take control. Subsequently the French sought to reconquer Indo-China, and the struggle has been going on ever since in a war of national liberation and unification.
Reference is made constantly to the Geneva Agreement and our role as Co-Chairman. There are four aspects of the Geneva Agreement of which I should like to remind the House. First—and this was made clear in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer), though it may not have been recorded, during the comments of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West—
that the military demarcation line should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary.
Those words were expressly included in the Geneva Agreement which, as my hon. Friend said, was simply a line of military demarcation.
Secondly, in that Geneva Agreement it was recognised that there would be temporary authorities functioning in what were described not as separate States, but as
northern and southern zones


respectively north and south of that line of demarcation. Thirdly, there was an obligation not to
establish bases on Cambodian or Laotian territory for the military forces of foreign Powers.
Fourthly, it was intended after the 1954 Agreement that
general elections shall be held in July 1956.
At Question Time today the Foreign Office spokesman seemed vague about the reasons why the elections had not proceeded in 1956, and he suggested that there were different interpretations of why that part of the Agreement had never been honoured. It is clearly on the record that although elections were due to take place in July, 1956, it was in January, 1956, that an alleged State was set up in South Vietnam.
Elections were held in March of that year, but they were not elections in the sense that any hon. Member in this House would understand elections. There was censorship and opposition parties were banned. Many people boycotted them. The breach of the Agreement—the part of it which said that there would be elections in a unified Vietnam—occurred in January and March, 1956.
I commend hon. Gentlemen opposite who speak from prejudice rather than facts—[Interruption.]—or who certainly seem to do that—to refer to the "Documents Relating to British Involvement in the Indo-China Conflict 1945–1965," Cmnd. 2834. This makes interesting reading and I regret that time does not permit me to give many examples from these papers. Of particular interest is an account of a note submitted by the Moscow Embassy claiming:
The South Viet-Nam authorities also are openly breaching the military articles of the Geneva Agreement on Viet-Nam. In particular, as is pointed out in the Note…of…14th of February, 1956, new armaments, ammunition and foreign military personnel are being imported into South Viet-Nam, foreign military bases are being set up, attempts are being made to include South Viet-Nam in a military bloc."
I quote from this document because, first, it underlines what I have been saying about a contravention of the Geneva Agreement, and, second, because it makes somewhat sick and ironic reading after this lapse of time the declaration by Her

Majesty's Government in April 1956, that they
do not accept the statement in the Note".
They went on to say that no particulars were given of the charges or the claims made in the note about the breach of the Geneva Agreement. The British Government of the day said that they were unable to accept what has since become palpably self-evident. Indeed, nobody any longer seeks to deny that those breaches of the Geneva Agreement occurred on the part of the South Vietnam authorities with the backing of the United States.
It is nonsense to claim that there is no longer a question of there being civil war inside Vietnam. I recall some hon. Members claiming that because there were now regular North Vietnamese divisions involved in military action, that meant that any claim about a civil uprising in the South was no longer meaningful. But this is talking in terms of there being two properly established modern nation States, when one must accept that Vietnam is one country.
When the spokesman for the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), asked whether the same criteria would be applied in the case of East and West Germany, my answer is that whatever my view may be about that division, at least there was some sort of international agreement establishing the division, wrong though many of us may regard it as having been. In respect of North and South Vietnam, however, there has been no such agreement to establish separate political artificial institutions North and South of the military demarcation line.
It is not unusual for civil war to have been the prelude to the establishment of the independence and unification of territories which were previously occupied by foreign powers. This may be a sad fact of life, but it is part of the process of emancipation of a fully-fledged nation State. No one doubts that had it not been for the United States foreign intervention, this civil war would long ago have ended.
We have all the horrors of technologically advanced weaponry, weapons which seem to be judged more by their degree of vileness than by their military effectiveness. Whatever condemnation


there may be by some hon. Members of those who have supplied arms to Hanoi, there is, I submit, no comparison in human or moral terms between those weapons and the kinds of weapon that are now being used by the Americans, and not simply against military targets and personnel but against cities and the civil population.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the burying alive of innocent civilians, which took place in Hue in 1968, can hardly be surpassed for bestiality?

Mr. Latham: I would not like to enter a competition for bestiality, though I would simply quote the events in My Lai.
Hon. Members who have convinced themselves that there are 17 million people to be saved in the name of a democracy which they do not enjoy should ask themselves why the whole might of the most powerful and wealthy nation on earth has been unable to defeat a neighbouring aggressor, if that is what the conflict is all about. It must have occurred to them that the simple explanation is that the majority of the Vietnamese people, both North and South of the line of military demarcation, want to see foreigners off their soil, whether they be Chinese, Japanese, French or American.
It is in this situation—in which so many of the people in the South are civilians by day and Viet Cong by night—that no foreign army can succeed in suppressing that movement or pressing a natural aspiration for a people to be united and to determine their own destiny.
The extraordinary thing is that the President of the United States appears at times to have accepted the military analysis of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that he cannot expect to succeed militarily in Indo-China. Yet there is an extraordinary ambivalence about his attitude, for he seems at the same time to be expecting the Vietnamese people to concede in peace that which he could not win in war. We must, therefore, accept along with the military reality, the political reality that Vietnam is one country and should be allowed to be in that position.
The hon. Member for Inverness wondered why the North Vietnamese had taken action now. Is it not true also

that there has been this same ambivalence in the withdrawal of ground troops, while still building up and maintaining air and naval forces, with the process of "Vietnamisation" and the provision of American advisers in the field? The American President seems to be understanding on the one hand that he cannot win militarily though refusing to accept on the other the consequences, military and political, of accepting that inevitable fact.
The Americans regard themselves, maybe rightly in many respects, as the greatest nation in the world. On this issue, they have the opportunity either to show themselves to be the greatest and the meanest nation or the greatest and the most magnanimous.
It ought not to matter that this is claimed to be a first defeat in so many decades of history. The greatest moral example that the Americans could give to the world at present is to recognise the reality of the situation in Vietnam, and not to continue slaughtering military and civilian personnel on both sides, not to run the risk of world war and nuclear annihilation to save an American President's face. The longer the war, the more lives will be lost. No solution will thereby be achieved. What saddens me is that we do not have a British Government urging upon the Americans that course of action and helping them to be magnanimous and helping in proving them to be the greatest nation in the world.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: The situation in Indo-China has changed out of all recognition in recent months. On 1st January, 1971, 340,000 United States ground troops were in South Vietnam. On 1st May this year, two weeks ago, 69,000 United States ground troops were there. Today United States forces stand barely at one tenth of the level of two years ago. Despite that fact and the firm commitment of the United States Government and the United States President to end their commitment of ground forces in South East Asia, Hanoi, with very strong material backing from the Soviet Union, has decided to embark on a course of naked aggression across the boundaries of two other countries, Laos and Cambodia, and across the demarcation line laid down by the Geneva Agreements.
South Vietnam is today facing the biggest assault ever mounted by the North Vietnamese, bigger even than the one mounted at the time of the Tet offensive in February, 1968. Hon. Members from all sides of the House have to recognise that South Vietnam is facing this very largely on its own. A great myth is being put around that the war is not, from the point of view of South Vietnam, a Vietnamese war, and that it is just an American war. We have had contributions to that effect from more than one hon. Member on the Opposition benches today, who have argued that South Vietnam is not a country at all. But it is a fact that in every single month there have been more South Vietnamese military casualties than United States military casualties throughout the entire operation. It has been very much a South Vietnamese war. It is more so today than ever before.
The arguments deployed by the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham) would be very good for use by the neo-Nazis, for instance, in West Germany. Should they wish to reconquer what is today East Germany, they could perfectly well argue that Germany is one country and that it could not be held to be aggression if they were to cross eastwards in great strength into East Germany and occupy those parts of Germany that have been occupied previously by the Soviet Union and remain occupied.
But the South Vietnamese are today bearing the brunt very largely alone. It is significant that although there may be a lot of fuss in certain sections of the Press, and in certain parts of the House, about the mining of Haiphong, in reality the argument is about the naked aggression of the North against the South. I pay tribute to the South Vietnamese people and to the South Vietnamese forces, because if they stand firm on this occasion it will be their victory. It will not be an American victory or anyone else's. It will be, above all, theirs because the mining of Haiphong does not help them in any way in countering the present offensive.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Will the hon. Gentleman say whose air power is at present being used in support of the South Vietnamese?

Mr. Churchill: In support of the South Vietnamese, South Vietnamese air power

and United States air power is being used. On the other hand, perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not notice that an increasing number of MiG jet fighters are involved.
The most alarming part of the situation we face today is that while the United States commitment is being drastically reduced, we are seeing an increasing commitment by the Soviet Union. There are today some 600 or 700 Soviet-made tanks deployed inside the frontiers of South Vietnam. It is easy for the hon. Member for Paddington, North to argue that South Vietnam is not a country. From his lack of reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) I understand that he has, perhaps, never been there, unlike some of my hon. Friends and certain of his hon. Friends. I hope that we shall also hear from them shortly.
More than a million people fled North Vietnam when the Communists took control there. I have had the opportunity, as have many of my hon. Friends, of seeing some of these people who fled from the Communists under whom they did not wish to live. I have seen them in the field, on their own, facing the Vietcong and North Vietnamese main force units with no American support to hand. This is their battle and they have a perfect right to fight it.

Mr. Latham: It has been equally argued by some American propagandists that the refugees were infiltrators and that this apparently explained away completely the Vietcong activities in the South. That is not my nonsense; it is theirs. The hon. Gentleman talks of a reducing American commitment and an increasing Russian commitment. Would not he be a little fairer to the situation and distinguish between active involvement of troops and supply of weapons? There are no Russian or foreign forces involved in North Vietnam; but American forces have been involved in the South. Is there any evidence to suggest that any increase in supplies by the Soviet Union has not been more than matched by increases in supplies from the United States? The United States has not lowered its commitments in terms of military supplies to South Vietnam.

Mr. Churchill: Certainly the United States commitment to South Vietnam is


being drastically reduced today. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Chinese, for their part, have no illusions as to the growing Soviet commitment and, indeed, political position with Hanoi today, nor about Soviet ambitions and future intentions in South-East Asia and the Indian sub-Continent as a whole.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Chuchill: I am sorry, but I do not wish to detain the House for too long.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish.

Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman will have his chance to intervene in the debate.
We are being asked by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) to dissociate Britain from what the Americans have done. Only last Tuesday the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked whether my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would pursue such a course. We have seen over the years the right hon. Gentleman's past dissociations from the United States. He did it in 1965. He repeated it in 1966. It is going a long way out of one's way to dissociate oneself from something with which one is not associated. This is what the Leader of the Opposition did on at least two occasions, but not significantly in 1968 when he needed to turn to the American President for cash. Addressing the then hon. Member for Croydon, South—Mr. David Winnick—the Leader of the Opposition, then Prime Minister, said this:
…as far as dissociation is concerned, my hon. Friend could not be more wrong than to imagine that this will help."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 1180.]
That was Mr. Johnson's poodle speaking. But today the Leader of the Opposition asks that we dissociate ourselves from the United States.
Why do those voices which are so loud to condemn Britain's greatest friend and ally have no word of condemnation for those who are invading South Vietnam? Are they so careless of the future, the lives, and the happiness of 17 million people?
I pay tribute to those who actually go there, to those who are there today reporting this war as war correspondents

so that we can see what is happening. Their courage and understanding presents a very vivid contrast to those who preach and pontificate from a position of smug security about peoples for whom they have little concern.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Churchill: No. I have given way already three times. The hon. Gentleman will have his chance shortly.
The present situation has been brought about by Hanoi's aggression and has been made possible, above all, by Soviet support. What we are witnessing is a new struggle for power in Asia, with the United States on its way out and the Soviet Union vying with China for a future position in South-East Asia and the Indian sub-continent. What is at issue is not World War III, as some of the sillier sections of the Press and even sillier politicians, both here and elsewhere, are trying to assert with their scaremongering—but the future and independence of the small nations not only of Asia but of the whole world.
We are being asked to condemn the United States and Australia for supporting the South Vietnamese in the face of the aggression with which they are faced. We are seeing from certain hon. Members opposite a very unlovely but none the less usual orgy of anti-Americanism. What would even hon. Members opposite say when and if there were to be several divisions of North Vietnamese troops threatening Laos and Cambodia, as indeed they already do today, or Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore? Would they still range themselves against the countries which were being invaded?
It is a great sadness to many of my hon. Friends, and certainly to myself, that today the United Nations takes less notice of the invasion of South Vietnam than even the League of Nations in the 1930s in the face of Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia. At least the League had the decency to condemn it, even if it did not have the power to do anything about it. Today, aggression goes unchallenged and uncontested.
It is of the utmost urgency that the small nations should get together and try to form a system of collective security. For the important fact is not the mining


of Haiphong which is at worst an irrelevancy—it is the threat to the future of free and independent nations all over the world.
If anyone is to be condemned in the House today, it should be the aggressor. I hope that hon. Members in all quarters of the House will stand four-square in supporting the rights and the freedoms of all independent nations, particularly the smaller ones.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I trust that it will be accepted in the House that I have a little experience of South-East Asia and can speak about military matters with a certain degree of knowledge.
I state at the outset my own terms of reference and my reason for taking part in the debate. I do not regard this debate as being one in which to discuss the relative merits of North Vietnamese Communism as against South Vietnamese corruption. I do not think that it is a debate about past history, about the declaration of 1954 which in Article 6 clearly stated that the Seventeenth Parallel was only a truce line and was not to be regarded as a permanent boundary. I am not concerned with such matters except in so far as they lead us to a decision which has been made recently and the consequences of which are reverberating through the House.
I take as my starting point the fact that the American intervention in the Vietnamese conflict has produced absolutely nothing either for the South Vietnamese or for the people of any other small country anywhere in South-East Asia. I do not rely on my own ingenious thinking to make that claim. I quote from an article published in a recent issue of the Christian Science Monitor, which has perhaps the finest staff of overseas correspondents available at the moment. The article was written by Charles W. Yost who for 40 years was a diplomat serving the United States of America. Among many other things Mr. Yost said this:
The United States has already been in Indo-China for too long. Let us not, because Hanoi has inconveniently but predictably chosen this moment for an offensive, allow ourselves to be sucked in all over again. This is not February, 1965.

Let us at long last 'Vietnamise' 100 per cent., stop bombing, arrange the release of our prisoners, and get out completely. It is in the interest of all Americans.
That point of view, as the presidential primaries indicate, is shared by a growing number of Americans. One is in no sense anti-American in bringing these facts to the attention of the House.
Therefore, the problem is not whether the north consists of angels and the south of devils. It is how the United States can extricate itself without too much loss of face—because I do not hate the Americans—from a totally impossible military situation. If the Americans were to double the forces which they have available in and around North Vietnam, if they were to triple the forces they have available, they would not be able to affect the result of the struggle on the ground which in all wars is the decisive struggle.
The theorists of air power have had their ideas literally blown to pieces in the last 25 years; and, I regret to say, the proponents of naval power alone have also sunk in a watery grave. It is land conflict which matters in the battle now taking place. The intervention of America, whether by long-range artillery or by B52 bombers, can have no effect whatever.

Mr. Wilkinson: To take up the hon. Gentleman's point about the relative merits of air and naval power, in the two world wars naval power had a decisive effect on the outcome. In the Second World War air power gravely damaged the ability of the Germans to wage war. Since then, in 1967, air power was decisive. It had a very important influence in the Korean war and also in the Indian-Pakistan conflict. The hon. Gentleman is being very rash.

Mr. Fletcher: I could go off at a tangent and engage in a conversation with the hon. Gentleman about his interpretation of certain military facts. As to the Second World War and 1967, I certainly do not accept the hon. Gentleman's general conclusions. In any case, they are not relevant to this argument.
I argue that here and now in 1972 America's growing presence in the Vietnam area cannot influence the course of the war one way or the other. In effect,


in spite of the fact that weather conditions are turning against them, the North Vietnamese have virtually won the war—there is no question about that. The end can be delayed one year or perhaps two years, but, in so far as this is a war, the North Vietnamese have won it. They have won it without 600 or 700 Soviet tanks. The highest figure I have seen quoted, although I use it subject to correction, is 300.
Another point we have to bear in mind about the supplies necessary to sustain this offensive is that it is extremely doubtful whether more than one third of the supplies that are coming from the Soviet Union and China actually pass through the port of Haiphong, or are in any way affected by American action against that port, either by bombing or by the sowing of mines in the sea.
The thing that alarms me is whether America, in seeking rather clumsily to extricate herself from one situation, is actually plunging herself into another. To say this is not to present the Americans as horned devils, it is to speak candidly, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), said we always should.
The plain facts are these: in spite of the very well-publicised reduction in American ground forces to about 65,000, none of whom are engaged in combat of any kind, there has been an addition to the American presence in the actual area, if in this area we include the seas around Vietnam and the neighbouring territories.
There are, for instance, an extra 41,000 aboard the ships of the Seventh Fleet. There are 37,000 upwards now in Thailand. There are between 6,000 and 10,000—we cannot get the exact figures—serving the bombers that fly out of Guam to attack targets in North Vietnam. The general total of American forces involved in what is supposed to be an extrication operation is actually nearer 150,000 than the 60-odd thousand figure that is usually quoted. The military hardware which is being sent to this area includes ten squadrons of aircraft and these naturally include the Phantom. I think the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) would agree that the Phantom is one of the finest aircraft now flying, if one must fly in an aircraft.
Quite apart from the quality of the hardware, quite apart from the fact that

the South Vietnamese army, which has sustained so many ignominious defeats in recent days, was probably the best-equipped army in the whole of Asia, quite apart from the fact that the Americans have between four and six carriers in Vietnamese waters, in spite of the fact that the American military presence in terms of war vessels is now up to 60, which is quite a formidable force, none of these can possibly affect the land battles around An Loc or the future battle which is coming for the town of Hue.
But this can involve the United States of America in conflicts which will expand into Thailand, which will expand, as they aready have to some degree, into Cambodia and may finally bring the very thing that President Nixon went to Peking to try to avoid, a direct confrontation between China and the United States. It is rather doubtful, in view of the Chinese lack of naval strength, but certainly political confrontation, now that the Chinese are in the United Nations, could be potentially dangerous for everyone. If the American presence is allowed to widen—and I deliberately use the word "widen" rather than the frequently misused term "escalate"—what effect will this have on the discussions now contemplated with the Soviet Union on the reduction of arms in Europe and the reduction of tension everywhere else? It will have a disastrous effect.

Mr. Burden: Would not the hon. Member agree that a reduction in tension can come only if both sides are prepared to compromise? Inevitably, if one side is determined on conquest confrontation must ultimately come, just as there was confrontation between Hitler and Europe, and this country in particular. It was impossible to compromise with him. He was intent upon conquest and if the Russians are intent upon the same thing then, alas, confrontation is inevitable.

Mr. Fletcher: I cannot speak for the Russians and nor would I wish to. But if the Russians were intent on that type of conquest then the nature and quantity of material they have sent to North Vietnam would be considerably different. There would also be considerably more of it.
I believe that the Soviet Union is getting rather nervous. What confirms me in this impression is the fact that the


Soviet Press, both Pravda and Izvestia, have not become very excited about the mining of Haiphong. They have not demanded an ending of the preparations for talks between President Nixon and the Soviet leaders. Because whatever the Soviet leaders may say in terms of their supposed ideology, in actual practical politics they behave more like Nicholas the First than Nikolai Lenin or Karl Marx. They are concerned with material interest and the conservation of their gains. I still believe, without saying "Glory, Hallelujah" every time I see Prime Minister Kosygin's picture, that one can do deals with the Soviet Union, and that such realistic, cold-blooded deals, which are the only deals possible, are undoubtedly what President Nixon had in mind when he planned to visit Moscow.
These could be threatened and destroyed by the totally unnecessary American action in the waters around Vietnam. It is terrible that they should engage in bombing at this time, because it cannot affect the military outcome of the struggle. The bombing of itself is bad enough, but for the Americans to widen their presence in the area by this expanding naval-cum-air presence is absolute lunacy which makes neither military nor political sense, as some hon. Members on the Government side have sometimes recognised. It is dangerous because it upsets all those movements towards some kind of détente, not including the West German Ostpolitik, on which we have based so many of our hopes. It is an absolutely unnecessary spasm reaction which cannot have been taken cold-bloodedly and certainly it cannot have been taken by people who think with icy brains.
The only people fit to be entrusted with the peace of the world are not those who think with their blood and who get rushes of blood to the head, but those who remain, in all circumstances and at all times, ice-cold in their calculations. We are beginning to see the emergence of such people in the Soviet Union. It is time we started to produce our own in the Western Alliance. I thought at one time that we had one such person in President Nixon, but I was grievously mistaken. I hope we have one in Senator McGovern.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: We have heard a lot, mainly from the other side of the House, about the inevitability of the American defeat, about the essential immorality of their position, how awful is their future in Vietnam and how ineluctable will be their humiliating departure. I want to put the alternative view, not because of any old-fashioned sense of espousing those always-arguedabout verities stemming from 1954 and the original history of this tragic conflict but because I believe there has been sufficient defeatism spoken already, not only in the United States about this conflict but also in the United Kingdom.
I believe this again not in the old-fashioned sense of saying that continuing this programme of the Americans in Vietnam which is both the continuation of a phased withdrawal and, quite rightly, a refusal to acknowledge the surrender of the South Vietnamese to Communist invasion, but in defending what I regard as a modern and realistic position. I do not do so in the old-fashioned "Communist bashing" sense. We can all argue about the origins, who was right, who was wrong, whether it causes more devastation and damage to innocent noncombatant civilians to continue the bombing and ruination, or reducing to rubble one South Vietnamese village after another by North Vietnam's armed forces.
We can all argue about these things, but the central feature of this conflict which I should prefer to argue and enunciate is that South Vietnam has a basic right in international law and in the reality of everything that the West has always stood for and still does stand for, not to be a Communist-dominated society and a Communist-run country if it does not wish to be so.
Why is the debate in this country, the United States and throughout Europe, most of all in France, so one-sided about the future of South Vietnam? Why does the searchlight always play so enthusiastically upon the shortcomings of Saigon, upon the failures of Arvin to gain any victories, upon the immorality—and one acknowledges it often—of the Americans, upon the incompetence—one acknowledges that sometimes—of the Americans?
Why is the searchlight never played upon what goes on in Hanoi? Is this the benevolent social democracy that some hon. Members opposite purport to see or is it the régime, which I believe it is, which is repressive, totalitarian, ugly, grisly and criminal which has existed since 1954—a regime that does not send dissidents to island prisons—and in the South there are some dissidents who are in prison and that is regrettable—but executes them on the spot without any case being heard? The evidence is not sufficient in this country and that is the great psychological propaganda advantage of the North Vietnamese.
There is no discussion about what I believe exists now in Hanoi, namely a considerable amount of evidence to back up the theory that there is a serious debate between the hawks and the doves there, the hawks not wishing to give in on the military conflict and reduce the pace of what they call that critical moment of last victory for which they have been fighting for so long. "Let us not give up now comrades", they say. The doves say that this war, despite the fact that they agree it is a just cause from the Communist standpoint, has already caused sufficient misery, terror, violence and brutality and a breakdown of family life in North Vietnam, and it should be ended now, say the doves.
There is evidence in Hanoi's own newspapers, which one can clearly read although it is necessary to read carefully between the lines in the controlled Press, that this debate is not only raging now and is one of the root causes of this latest offensive in the South but that it has been raging for many years. The greatest gift to those who are arguing the hard Hanoi line, and there are plenty of them in the Politburo as well, is to say, as the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) did, that the Americans must leave, that their defeat is inevitable, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said.
It is attractive, it is easy to argue this. It seems often incontrovertible in view of what has so far happened in South Vietnam. The continuing failures, the repeated mistakes and the saga—I hesitate to say it because they are our allies and friends—of incompetence manifested repeatedly by the Americans has not

helped their own case. It is true that massive naval power will have only a marginal impact on the state of the conflict, it is true that B52 strikes are almost ludicrous in many of their results on the ground, but despite all this we have the plus signs of South Vietnam, the encouraging political developments in the South and the encouraging military developments too. It would be catastrophic folly for this, the most venerable Parliament of all in the Western world, if at the end of this debate we enunciated the defeatist and depressing, lugubrious message of the hon. Member for Ilkeston.
This is not only because I attach some importance—and it is a matter of degree, hon. Members vary in their views about it—to saying that South Vietnam is, with all its shortcomings, with the highly unattractive nature of the present Saigon regime—and I admit this—with the fact that elections have been manipulated, the fact that dissidents are in prison, a place where progress is being made; but it is also because this can be demolished quickly if the Communists are allowed to take over. There would be a spurious political settlement, with the inevitable outcome that we can all imagine. We have only to look at other examples of what has happened when Communists get into a formal situation. The position can also be demolished if the disaster now facing the Americans and the South Vietnamese military forces were to occur with our encouragement and connivance.
We can adopt a more positive attitude as the ensemble of this Parliament with different political views on both sides and say, not for the sake of our amour proper at a vast distance from this tragic territory, that we believe it is right that South Vietnam should remain a self-determining territory outside the ambit of what I regard as one of the more grisly regimes in Communist history and that is saying a great deal.
I have been to Vietnam—although I do not go along that dangerous road of saying that if one has not been to a country one should not talk about it. I have visited South Vietnam several times. I have had sufficient evidence put to me in rural and urban areas to show that there is no overwhelming feeling in the South for the Communist movement, that there is no overwhelming support for the


so-called National Liberation Front and that there is detestation, despite the fact that many families are divided North and South, for the Hanoi régime.
This may not be a figure of 90 or 95 per cent. but it is sufficient in proportional terms for me to believe sincerely that it is totally unacceptable that Hanoi should be allowed to exert its dominance over the South against the will of the population there as a whole. There are many political opinions in the South and there is much more of a free discussion in Saigon and some of the big cities too than some hon. Members opposite would care to suggest or admit.
The overwhelming view in the South is that, despite their uneasy acceptance of an American presence which has been gauche, often hilarious, often ludicrous, often a failure of one kind or another, they have the right to continue as a free society, I hope with a different régime in future but certainly not a Communist one. It is therefore vitally important that in this debate today, although it is one in which repetition will inevitably occur, and old opinions will be re-expressed, in the full knowledge of the awesome situation that has been created with the latest military developments, we should not fall for the seemingly attractive doctrine that it is always the fault of the Americans, that the South Vietnamese régime has nothing to its credit and nothing good to be said about it, that the Communists are right and that it is civil war—which is the greatest piece of nonsense and heresy that has been perpetrated over here—and that the people who represent the villages and the self-defence corps, the headmen and the responsible and uncorrupt officials in South Vietnam, of whom there are many, that the families and the ordinary mothers of Vietnam should have no say in what is for them, even though it is remote from us, the great debate.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I have given an assurance that I shall speak for only six minutes, and I will do my best to keep to it.
The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) should look at what he said, because the logic of his argument is that, in order to preserve the freedom which is supposed to exist in South Vietnam, not

only should there be American intervention but we should be demanding British intervention. That is a very dangerous argument for any hon. Member to put forward. We should take note of the fact that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) did not argue that. In fact, he argued the opposite, that we had to face the reality of the situation, namely, that the Americans have virtually lost the war in Vietnam, and the only thing which should be concerning us is the best way in which we can assist the Americans to get out without the loss of too much face.
It was a very important argument which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West developed, and it sprang very much from the nature and character of the war which has been developing and taking place in Vietnam for many years. Ever since I have been a Member of the House, which is since 1964, we have discussed the Vietnam situation, but the Vietnam problem was on the world agenda long before that and it arose Precisely because the people in Vietnam, at the end of the Second World War in 1945, wanted, like everybody else, their freedom and independence from colonial occupation and colonial power.
It is interesting to note that on 2nd September, 1945, in Hanoi, President Ho Chi Minh read out the Declaration of Independence of the Vietnamese people, and it began with a quote—the one which we all know—from the American Declaration of Independence. That was what the Vietnamese people were fighting for.
There are refugees in every war situation. There were refugees in America during the Civil War. In any war situation one section of the community will never be reconciled with the majority who have taken over control of the country.

Mr. Cormack: Mr. Cormack rose—

Mr. Heffer: I promised to take six minutes. The hon. Gentleman has probably made his speech. If he has not, he will perhaps be able to make his point later.
There are those who argue that we on this side of the House are concerned only with opposing the United States. That is not true. We regard freedom as being indivisible. It was we in this House who


more strongly than anyone else condemned the Soviet Union in its invasion of Czechoslovakia. We said that the Russians were wrong in trying to stop the Czechoslovakian people from solving their problems in their own way and from creating socialism with a human face. We do not say one thing to the Russians and something else to the Americans. We say that the Russian occupation and control of Czechoslovakia is wrong, and so is American aggression in relation to the Vietnamese people.
There should be no question of having, as many hon. Members opposite have, antagonism towards one nation, the Soviet Union, but saying absolutely nothing in condemnation of the United States. We are as opposed to the Soviet Union's policy in Czechoslovakia or anywhere else as we are to America's policy in Vietnam.
Let us be clear about the question of aggression in Vietnam. The Geneva accords arose out of the defeat of the French in Vietnam. The Geneva Agreement resulted from Dien Bien Phu where the French thought that they could do what the Americans think they can do now, namely, defeat and hold back the Vietnamese people in their struggle for independence and freedom. That is not possible. It can be done for a period. It can be done for one or two or perhaps 20 years. But we cannot stop people from having their freedom in the ultimate. No Tory could stop the American people from having their independence in 1776. But people tried. George III thought that he could turn back history. He could not.

Mr. Dykes: Mr. Dykes rose—

Mr. Heffer: I shall not give way. I am over my time now because of the interruptions—

Mr. Dykes: Sit down!

Mr. Heffer: I shall not have the hon. Gentleman telling me to sit down. I did not say that the hon. Gentleman should sit down when he was making his speech. He should be courteous, as I was when he was speaking.
When the mines were put in the sea outside Haiphong and other ports it was not just the Americans who were in-

volved; it was the whole world. I say to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) that I was attached to the American Eighth Army Corps during the Second World War, so I have some right to talk to the Americans. As their allies and friends, if they take action which is liable to involve the whole world in a holocaust and possible destruction, we have a right to say to them, "This far and no further." To stop the world from roasting, I believe that this House should, by its vote, say to the Americans, "We dissociate ourselves from the policy in Vietnam which you are pursuing and which you have pursued for too long".

5.59 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I shall try to be brief. I am glad of the chance to intervene at this late stage of the debate because I have made a couple of visits to South Vietnam over the last 12 months or so. I therefore speak from some knowledge, and certainly with a very deep sympathy for the situation.
Inside and outside the House there is much concentration, perhaps understandably, on the American part in the war, but surely the background against which we debate this subject is the tragedy of the people of Vietnam—their unparalleled suffering and the unparalleled devastation of their land. For over 25 years these poor people have had the French, Americans, Vietminh, Vietcong and the North Vietnamese Army devastating their land. I praise the courage and spirit with which the South Vietnamese have borne their many sufferings.
However, obviously the most important thing is not to spend too much time on recrimination at this stage in the long war in Vietnam but to look to the future. To get the future right we have to make certain that we have got the present right, and it is not easy, as we have seen in the present climate in this House, in the present climate in this country, in the present climate in the whole of Western Europe, because of so much ignorance masquerading as knowledge and so much prejudice masquerading as fact and so many lies masquerading as truth, and when so many people are too ready to believe the worst and anxious to believe the worst because it is easier to believe lies, which are simple, rather than the truth, which is complex. Nevertheless, there are certain simple truths which I


should like to place on record, and, after all the smoke of this debate has blown away, certain things which should be done.
The first is that South Vietnam is a democracy. It is not a perfect democracy. It has made many mistakes, it has made many blunders, and it is not a Westminster democracy and it is not a Washington democracy. None the less, there are opposition parties in Saigon. There is none in Hanoi. There are opposition papers in Saigon. There is none in Hanoi. President Thieu is not a dictator. He does not push through the Senate in Saigon everything he says. Therefore, it is important to remember that, for all its failures, Saigon is a democracy and is, therefore, deserving of our support.
A second fact which seems to me clear is that the present circumstances of this war have been brought about—I emphasise the word "present"—by one fact, and that fact has been the invasion by regular armed forces of North Vietnam upon the people of South Vietnam and against internationally agreed treaties. This is a flagrant violation of international law, and that cannot be gainsaid. It is a significant fact that the Vietcong have played no significant part in this phase. It is a measure of the success of pacification that the Vietcong have up to now in this phase not been significantly active. The whole burden of this new attack against South Vietnam has had to be borne by regular armed troops of North Vietnam, armed in the main by the Soviet Union.
The third point which I would make very briefly is that we must not forget that South Vietnam does not covet and has never attempted to seize one square inch of North Vietnam—not one. It is North Vietnam which covets, and which is attempting now to seize, the whole of South Vietnam. Let us remember exactly what the facts are.
The last thing that I wish to say in the few moments I have is that if North Vietnam were to stop firing its weapons tomorrow, the war would be over. If the Americans were to stop firing their weapons tomorrow, if the South Vietnamese were to stop firing their weapons tomorrow, the North Vietnamese would

simply march on and try to conquer the South. The onus for continuing this terrible war lies fairly and squarely on North Vietnam and the people who supply North Vietnam with arms.
As I said, it is most important to look constructively to the future. I certainly wholeheartedly welcome the attempts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to reconvene the Geneva Conference. I deeply regret that the Soviet Union has made no willing or helpful response to these attempts. I would make this very simple point. What I should like to see, or to see some version of, are attempts at these things. When a peace conference is convened, as I hope it will be soon, we must have a cease fire which respects the territorial integrity of both North Vietnam and South Vietnam, both absolutely equally. I would suggest the territorial situation as it existed on 31st March, 1972. I would be totally against an "in place" agreement because that would simply encourage the Communists to say, "Today we hold Quang Tri, may be tomorrow we take Hue", to negotiate a peace, and then nibble away and take a wee bit more of South Vietnam, and so it would go on. It must he a cease fire which respects the territorial integrity of both countries equally.
My next suggestion is that the cease fire should be followed by free elections in South Vietnam and under international supervision. What could be fairer than that? In the free elections we would have Communists standing as candidates if they want to do so. Let them put their views to the test of a freely elected assembly and see whether they can get them accepted by votes, instead of attempting to force their opinions by guns.
The election would then be fought. Whoever wins it, whichever side gets in as having won the election, the people of South Vietnam having been the instrument of their own self-determination, not imposed by any conference—we do not want a coalition government imposed by the Americans or the Russians—there should be cast-iron international guarantees to keep that solution, whatever it may be. Surely that is just and fair? I should be very glad to hear my right hon. Friend's comments on that.
I very much hope that the Government will be able to support something on these lines to bring, at last, peace to the tragic country of South Vietnam.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I labour under two disadvantages. First of all, I have never been to Vietnam. I have listened with great attention to those who know far more about it than I, and I hope to profit by what they said. My second disadvantage is that I am not a regular participant in foreign affairs debates. Indeed, the last speech I made in this House on foreign affairs was on the question of what would happen in South-East Asia when the Japanese invasion rolled back—and I made that speech in 1945. There has been a certain amount of time for reflection in the ensuing 26 years. All I can do is to offer the House my view as I have listened to the debate and heard what hon. Members have said, and having talked to those who have studied these matters very considerably and read their writings on the subject.
I should like to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) upon securing this debate. I must confess that at the outset I, too, was a little dubious, as, Mr. Speaker, you said you were dubious, whether it should be held, but on reflection it is quite clear that I was wrong and that my hon. Friend was right to press for it, and I think that the level of the debate has been such that the debate has been very valuable.
Having said that, I am left with certain doubts in my mind, and one is whether anybody outside this House is listening to us. We, obviously, have very little power to influence the President of the United States, who hardly seems to be influenced by some of his own advisers, and I shall indicate that a little later by a quotation. The USSR clearly takes very little notice of us. It is not willing to go to the conference table as cochairman of the Geneva Conference Powers. As for North Vietnam, I read in The Times newspaper on Saturday that Mr. Le Duc Tho, leading the North Vietnamese at the talks in Paris, clearly found it amusing that the British should claim to play any rôle. Despite the fact, therefore, that it is right for us to express our anxieties, on the basis of which I

shall go into the Division Lobby tonight, nevertheless I think that it is possible to overwrite at this time the influence which a debate in this House has.
Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone said, when he asked for the debate, there is no doubt that the situation represents a most serious potential danger to world peace. A week ago President Nixon took a gamble that threatened war on a huge scale, and might involve the USSR. The fact that it has not had that effect so far is not due to President Nixon but to the cool, cautious response of the USSR, and I shall come to why I think the USSR has made that response. President Nixon having taken this decision, one is bound to ask, why did he do it? What was the purpose of it? No one this afternoon has claimed that it will win the war. The most that has been said is that it might perhaps effect a breathing space. It has escalated the conflict. No one has claimed that it will secure peace and no one has denied that it could endanger President Nixon's attempt to move closer to China and the USSR.
I cannot find a satisfying answer to the question except this—which I am told—that President Nixon needs a short-term success in the immediate future to off-set the long-term inevitable withdrawal from Vietnam. That is a heavy risk to take. If, as he says, he does it only to safeguard American lives and honour, I suggest that American lives can best be safeguarded not by this step but by continuing the process of withdrawal, which has been carried on at such a rate that, whereas there were half a million United States troops in South Vietnam, there are now no more than 60.000. As to American honour, by which I think President Nixon means his obligations to protect the South Vietnamese who support United States policy, that is not so easily safeguarded, especially if the United States is moving towards the inevitable withdrawal. But only meaningful discussions around the conference table can begin to avert the wrath that falls on the vanquished at the end of an unsuccessful war, especially one as fierce, bloody and fratricidal as this one.
President Nixon is right to be concerned about the fate of those who have fought alongside him and have supported his regime of course he must be, and


none of us in this House should be indifferent to that. But, if he is to secure their future, he must be equally ready to withhold support from the regime of President Thieu in order to secure settlement.
I come back to the question of what the President has done and how he has done it. He was given due warning of the consequences of his action when he first came into office. To anyone who argues—as I have heard some Conservative back benchers argue this afternoon—that this action has some military advantage, I can only reply in the terms of the statement in The Guardian, which has not been denied:
In January, 1969, Mr. Nixon was given similar advice…".
That is to say, advice similar to the advice which had been given to President Johnson:
…in the national security study of Vietnam commissioned by Henry Kissinger on the eve of the President's inauguration. Extracts from the document were recently published in the American Press. In the study the CIA reported that:
'…all the war-essential imports could be brought into North Vietnam over rail lines or roads from China in the event that imports by sea were successfully denied.'
The disruption to imports, it said, would be 'widespread but temporary', and within two or three months North Vietnam and its allies would be able to set up alternative channels. The total capacity of rail, road, and water connections with China was said to be about 16,000 tons a day, more than two and a half times the highest volume ever reached by all routes combined including that by sea.
That is the view of the American Press, not simply my view or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone.
Why has this action been taken? The only expert I have heard to disagree with this view is the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) when he appeared on television last week. With respect, although I am sure he has made a close study of this—and he told us that he had served in the area—I feel that the American CIA has perhaps slightly closer contact than he has in making an assessment of the situation. That advice was offered to President Johnson, and to President Nixon, who accepted it and then rejected it.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles (Winchester) rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I shall be glad to give way provided I am not asked to justify the advice, because the hon. and gallant Member is a military expert and I am not.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Surely the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) is quoting advice which was given in 1969 before this flagrant, vast, military aggression on the South by the North. Things are altogether different now.

Mr. Callaghan: I am not aware that things are altogether different, but I do not wish to argue the point with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. My understanding is that, although the study was prepared in 1969, the advice was reinforced when President Nixon was making up his mind whether to take this decision. The hon. and gallant Gentleman clearly knows much more about what was contained in the advice to President Nixon than I do and I therefore defer to him on this point, but I am still entitled to quote from what was said on that matter and to express my own conclusion that I think that the advice is right. Time after time we have heard these dreary continuing accounts of the "last thrust" that will make all the difference to the war. The hon. and gallant Gentleman lent himself to it on television only a week ago. I just do not believe it. It is against all credibility.
The two assessments that to me came nearest to the reality of the situation were those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—although Conservative back benchers are very selective of those from whom they accept teachings of this sort. They are prepared to accept in silence the teachings of some more than others. Perhaps one of the most revealing aspects of the debate has been the pathology of some Conservative back benchers—

Mr. Wilkinson: Surely the whole point is that in 1969 there was a guerilla insurrection in the South. Now we have a conventional attack requiring vast logistic support. What the Americans are engaged in is not just a naval blockade but an air interdiction right along the trail before


the monsoon breaks which will enable the South Vietnamese to hold their positions and to build up their strength in the months ahead?

Mr. Callaghan: I have heard and read it all before many times, and something always seems to go wrong.
I regret to say this to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden), but he should remember that when he refers to senators in the United States as quislings, he may be referring to the next American President. What will be the attitude of the Conservative Party if, in six months' time, Senator McGovern or Senator Humphrey becomes President of the United States?

Sir Gilbert Longden: Whatever these gentlemen become, they are behaving in very much the same way as Quisling behaved in the war.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman has now compounded his offence. Reticence on the part of those who are not actively engaged in this battle would be more becoming than saying that they are willing to fight to the last American and the last Vietnamese peasant.
I have said that President Nixon is right to be concerned with the fate of the people of South Vietnam. One difficulty is that the people of South Vietnam are not greeting the invading armies as liberators, but nor, alternatively, do they seem to rely on the support of an independent South Vietnamese Government. But is that surprising when one considers the history?
I suspect that, after 30 years of continuous conflict, battle, destruction, carnage and instability, what the ordinary man in Vietnam wants more than anything is to sow crops in the expectation of being able to gather them in peace. He may well be so numbed by the continuation of this near-30-years war that he will welcome whoever brings peace. Those of us who pontificate from outside might remember that, and it is not unique to Vietnam. It is not for the great Powers to deny that to the Vietnamese peasant.
I come to the question of what separates the parties on the face of it. First, take President Nixon's position. He says that he wants the return of all United States prisoners, he wants an

internationally-supervised ceasefire and, following that, the complete withdrawal of all American forces within four months. That is to be coupled with what he said on an earlier occasion: an internationally supervised election in which North Vietnam will participate in both the elections and the supervising body; and President Thieu to resign at least one month before the elections—that is absolutely essential, and preferably earlier, I should have thought. That is President Nixon's public position.
What is Hanoi's response? According to Mr. Le Due Tho, the United States must stop all attacks on the North. They must fix a date for the withdrawal of forces. They must agree to a coalition Government, excluding President Thieu. When this is done, the North Vietnamese will discuss a ceasefire and the release of prisoners of war. Despite the mirth displayed by some Government supporters I suggest that there are many elements that are common to both of those statements, and if we want peace it is upon those that the Government should be focusing attention at the present time.
What on the face of it seems to be at stake is in which order—and each side has placed the issues in different order, and this is a fundamental difference—those conditions are to be carried out. Does the release of prisoners of war come before or after attacks on the North have stopped? Should a coalition Government excluding President Thieu proceed or follow internationally supervised elections? Clearly, given just a pinch of good will it would be possible to get down to discussions on a matter of this sort and also to reach an accommodation.
What is equally clear is that any desire to reach an accommodation is tragically absent. No one can say whether President Nixon's action in resuming the bombing of the North in January prompted the new offensive launched by Hanoi at Easter, but it cannot be denied that the Executive Committee of the Labour Party was certainly right in January when it forecast in its statement that the resumed bombing would
…only increase the suffering and prolong the war.
That has happened, but it is clear that neither the bombing nor the mining nor the process of Vietnamisation can win the war for the United States.
It is Hanoi which is in the ascendant. Whatever hon. Members on the Government side may say, it is Hanoi which is making the military gains. President Nixon is making his latest offers coupled with increased bombing and mining of Haiphong, from a very weak hand, and we should recognise it as such: an unpopular war at home, a corrupt Government in Saigon and an apathetic and fearful peasantry in the countryside. If Hanoi would listen, they could learn something from a quotation by a distinguished relative of the hon. Member for Stretford:
In defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity.
Voice was given to that quotation, as we all know, by Sir Winston Churchill.
Mr. Le Duc Tho said last week that he was perfectly prepared to have new private talks with Doctor Kissinger but doubted the sincerity of the Americans. Who will the Hanoi Government trust? Obviously it is not the British Government. They have made that clear. There was laughter in Mr. Le Duc Tho's voice when he said that we had no standing in the matter. What is to be done? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone. Can we not make some approach, because there is in this country a genuine concern among all people who agree about peace in any part of the world. This country has a tradition, and people still look to us. However small our influence may be in these matters, could not the British Government take some initiative with some of the other countries which are non-participants?
I do not know how the two sides can be brought together—if indeed, Hanoi wish it. Or is Hanoi's present intransigence such that they just wish to continue their advance so as to control as much territory as possible before the internationally supervised ceasefire takes place and elections are held? We do not know but this seems to be the most hopeful rôle that the Government could pursue—not with the principal contestants but by influence and in other ways to get other countries not active participants to take up the matter. Could we not get the non-involved States to take the lead and give an initiative? We do not know what China's reaction would be now that she has returned to the United

Nations. I may be told that this is naïve in any case, but are we to sit by and do nothing, and witness this carnage and desolation continue? I do not think that anyone would want that.
I therefore agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone that it has given an air of unreality to the whole proceedings to hear that the summit meeting between Mr. Brezhnev and President Nixon is still to go ahead as planned. We are all relieved, and hope that it will and that it will be fruitful. It shows, I think, that the Russians hope to get more out of some economic agreement with the United States, and hope to achieve some new concessions in the SALT talks when the President is in Moscow. The only thing in my judgment that could call off the summit would be if the West German treaties with Moscow on the future of the Ostpolitik failed to be ratified. I believe that that is the only thing that would mean that the Russians would call off the summit.
We have not time in this debate—we need another debate for that—to delve into the longer-term consequences of the tragedy that is being played out; the effect on the American attitude in Europe, the position of Cambodia and Laos, relations between China and the United States. All these are important issues which we should thrash out on a future occasion.
Most of us want to register a view and a vote tonight in order to show people that we feel that it is essential that more should be done to bring this conflict to an end, and I should like to tell the House on what basis I shall vote. Others may vote for different reasons, but it is important to register a vote. I shall vote to express my disagreement with President Nixon's policy of escalating the bombing and the mining—[Interruption.] I do not suppose that I shall get wholehearted cheering or booing for everything I say. I shall vote also to express my disagreement with the intransigent attitude of Hanoi at the present time when they have stepped up their offensive. And all of us can vote to express our detestation—

Mr. Philip Goodhart: In which Lobby?

Mr. Callaghan: In the same Lobby, because for the reasons I shall give to the hon. Member he can join me, if he is


sincere. I shall vote to express our detestation of the 30 years of war which have resulted in the corruption of the Vietnamese people and in the death and maiming of thousands of men, women and children there. And I say to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Good-hart) that I shall vote as an indication to everyone concerned, whether he is in Moscow, or Hanoi, or in Saigon or in Washington, that the world demands that this slaughter be brought to an end. This is the basis on which we shall vote. We shall vote in order to show that whatever limited power and influence this country may have it will in this matter be cast on the side of a lasting and just peace.

6.28 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Joseph Godber): The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) started by reminding us that this was his first intervention in foreign affairs since 1945. We are glad to welcome him back to these debates and wish him many happy years taking part in them from that Front Bench.
In this debate we have heard much criticism, first from the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) and then from other Opposition Members, of the recent action of the United States and, in particular, of the mining of the North Vietnamese ports. On the other hand, we have had very different views expressed by a number of my hon. Friends including my hon. Friends the Members for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden) and for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) and, if I may say so, a striking contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes).
I first want to take the House back a short distance in time to events before this latest United States action, because I want to bring home the essence, as I see it, of the problem at the moment. Whatever criticism Opposition Members may make about the American involvement—and I do not agree with their criticism—they cannot deny that the present American Administration have removed half a million troops from South Vietnam, and have repeatedly endeavoured, both publicly and, as we have been informed, in private discussions with North Vietnamese representatives in Paris, to engage in serious attempts to arrive at a nego-

tiated settlement. They have shown genuine and repeated attempts to bring this conflict to an end, and had the North Vietnamese not launched a new and unprovoked attack on South Vietnam, it is abundantly clear that the American involvement would have become minimal by the end of this year.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East referred to the escalation of the war by President Nixon. I would say to him that the real escalation began on 31st March, when the North Vietnamese launched their flagrant and massive invasion. The first thrust came across the demilitarised zone, the buffer region created by the 1954 Agreement and in which both Hanoi and Saigon undertook not to conduct military operations.
The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham) tried in particular to claim that we were dealing with one country in relation to Vietnam. Strictly in legal terms, that is true, I suppose, but we are dealing with the position created by the 1954 Agreement; the demilitarised zone was part of that agreement, just as the different organisations of North Vietnam and South Vietnam are part of it as well.
Apart from the North Vietnamese aggression across the demilitarised zone, there have been assaults across the Vietnamese frontiers with Laos and the Khmer Republic, countries whose territories the North Vietnamese have used illegally for many years in pursuit of their policy of aggression against South Vietnam.
This invasion was launched not by guerillas but by highly trained regular troops. Today the major part of North Vietnam's military force are deployed on South Vietnamese territory. Reliable reports indicate that North Vietnam has thrown all its 14 combat divisions, plus supporting units, into the fighting—a total of some 200,000 men—and this massive army has brought with it nearly 500 tanks, eight regiments of artillery, some equipped with the latest Russian weapons, including the latest 130 millimetre guns, and a large number of vehicles of all kinds needed to support an army of these formidable proportions. This is not a guerilla force. Nor is it being received as a liberation army. There have been precious few signs of welcome for the invaders among the South Vietnamese.
Indeed, another vast army, one of refugees this time, has fled before the North Vietnamese advance. The latest estimate of this army of refugees is that it totals nearly 750,000 people.
South Vietnam is defending herself against this ruthless assault as best she can, and in doing so has looked to her ally, the United States, for help. It was an essential feature of the Vietnamisation programme that the United States should continue to provide support in the air and at sea, and she has always made that plain. On the ground, American forces no longer have a combat role. After the withdrawal of 500,000 troops, there are only about 60,000 men left in a supporting and advisory role, with combat troops sufficient only for their own defence. Under a programme which President Nixon announced after the present aggression took place from the north, this force is due to be reduced still further and we are told that it will be under 50,000 by the end of June.
Alongside the criticism of the United States, from hon. Members opposite, we have heard very little criticism of North Vietnam's actions. Such damage and loss of life as has been caused by the Americans in Vietnam has to be seen in comparison with the massive destruction, loss of life and the endless columns of refugees in South Vietnam at this moment.
In the face of all this, America has decided to resume the bombing of military targets in North Vietnam and has mined the entrances to North Vietnamese ports. All war is hideous, and all escalation of war carries dangers to others—that has been made clear in the debate, and I know that it is in the minds of many hon. Members—but the American response on this occasion has been proportionate and directly related to the North Vietnamese invasion of the south.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Has the right hon. Gentleman investigated the report that the Americans are using bombs with plastic pieces in them which cannot be detected by X-ray? If he has investigated, has he made any protest against this brutality by a so-called civilised nation?

Mr. Godber: We have seen reports of various types of weapons being used by both sides. It is not appropriate for us

to comment in relation to these matters, on which we cannot have accurate information.
The attacks have been on military installations, supply depots, supply routes and ports through which pass materials of war which will enable North Vietnam to sustain its offensive, and the mining of the ports has the same purpose, we are told. It is a fact—and this has to be faced—that this is potentially the least destructive of human life of all the military options open to President Nixon, apart from abandoning the South Vietnamese to their fate. The latter may be what hon. Members opposite are suggesting. If it is, those who advocate that course should face up squarely to what it would mean to all our friends in other countries in South-East Asia and say where they stand in relation to that.
But even in the face of Hanoi's intensification of the war, President Nixon has put forward new proposals for a settlement, and if Hanoi responds positively to this offer, which I earnestly appeal to it to do, this long and terrible war could still be brought quickly to a close. In this connection, we welcome that passage in the Soviet Government's statement of 11th May, which declared that the only real way to settle the Vietnamese problem was to respect the Vietnamese people's rights to decide their own destiny without interference or pressure from outside. We have sympathy with that sentiment, with the qualification that this right to self-determination should be exercised peacefully and not under threat of force of arms and that it should apply equally to the peoples of Laos and the Khmer Republic as well.
Having restated, as I see them, the reasons for the present crisis, I make clear Her Majesty's Government's deep concern at the present position. As we all know, the Vietnam war is not just a local problem of South-East Anglia. Because it embodies the risk of direct confrontation between the major Powers it is a global problem. Its continuation is a threat to humanity as a whole. But as a nation we, the British, have deliberately not involved ourselves militarily in the war—and that applies to Governments of both parties over the years.
In these circumstances, surely the only sensible thing to do is to seek in whatever way we can to organise peace


making. In this we did involve ourselves, both in 1954 and 1962. We are ready to do so again. Various people have said that it is not so appropriate for us now, but we must make the effort, and we are doing so. We continuously support all the possible opportunities for progress. I want to refer to a few of them now.
First, there are the Paris talks. These are at present at a standstill, and hon. Members will know that, in addition to the public sessions, Dr. Kissinger met Mr. Le Duc Tho, a member of the North Vietnamese Politburo, secretly on 4th May, and the United States participants were unable to discern then any readiness at all on the part of Hanoi to put aside propaganda and to resume negotiations. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in Paris now and his talks with M. Schumann tomorrow will no doubt cover this and any other aspect we can work out together with our French colleagues. Of course, we should like to see progress, but the fact is that at the moment there is deadlock in Paris.
Secondly, some hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, have suggested that we should take the matter to the United Nations. At the United Nations the British representative has been in close and continuous touch with his colleagues on the Security Council in the last few weeks, and the Secretary-General has been consulting members of the Security Council and has placed his good offices at the disposal of the parties. But in frankness I have to tell the House that we have no evidence to suggest that the North Vietnamese have changed their view that this is not a matter for the United Nations. In addition, hon. Members may have seen that the Chinese representative at the United Nations, in a letter to the President of the Security Council and the Secretary-General, dated 11th May, has said that the Vietnam question has nothing to do with the United Nations. A copy of his letter is available in the Library of the House. With that, plus the attitude of Hanoi, there would seem little prospect of making progress.
As for our own position, my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary told the House on 8th May that our status in this matter derives from our position as Geneva co-chairman. Here is an international framework,

already used by the parties concerned, and it includes China, Laos and Cambodia. All those are there as members, if we can reactivate the conference, to deal with the problems of the area.
We have therefore very carefully considered what action we may take in this context. First, there is the possibility of using the International Control Commissions. The Geneva Conference has standing machinery in the form of these commissions, which still exist both in Laos and Vietnam. These commissions have limited terms of reference of supervision and investigation. They have been largely ineffective in practice and, regrettably, I see no real function for them at present. This view is shared by other Governments concerned. The Indian Minister of External Affairs told the Indian Upper House on 11th May that the ICC had no effective part to play at present, since it had been set up to supervise peace and not war. Nevertheless, there could conceivably be a peacemaking role for the commissions to play at a later stage, as my right hon. Friend has said before, and as I believe the Leader of the Opposition suggested in the House last week.
The Geneva Convention can be recalled only if the two co-chairmen are willing to act together. I can assure the House that this Government, like their predecessors, have spared no effort in their sincere attempts to persuade the Russians to join us in bringing about a peaceful settlement. I was sorry that the hon. Member for Penistone seemed to imply that my right hon. Friend had not been sincere in his efforts in this and other matters. I tell him and the House that there can be no question of that. He is genuinely involved in this and he has worked very hard at it. It is the problems that confront us that are the real difficulty, and not the attitude of my right hon. Friend.
Since the Geneva Conference of 1962 successive British Governments have made ten approaches to the Russian cochairman on the subject of reconvening the Geneva Conference on Vietnam. No fewer than three have been made by the present Government since the beginning of the present Communist offensive. So far, the Russians have replied saying that the time was not appropriate, or that it was not practicable, or they have failed to reply at all. Our most recent approach


to the Russians was made five days ago, when my right hon. Friend summoned the Soviet Ambassador and proposed once again the reconvening of the Geneva Conference. The Soviet Ambassador undertook to convey my right hon. Friend's proposal to Mr. Gromyko, and we now await his reply.
We are also in touch with other Governments on this matter, including—as the Prime Minister told the House on 11th May—the Chinese Government. In the present delicate and rapidly changing situation, hon. Members will not expect me to provide full details of the diplomatic exchanges in which we are now engaged; nor is there time for me to do so. I can assure the House, however, that we are leaving no stone unturned in our attempts to find a peaceful settlement to this terrible war.
As for President Nixon's latest proposals, our attitude, in all our discussions with other Governments about the situation, is quite clear. President Nixon's new proposals for ending the war are positive and constructive, and could lead

to an immediate end to the fighting and the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Vietnam before the end of September. The American offer now lies on the table. I suggest that it is for the North Vietnamese to show their desire for peace by a suitable response. Self-interest, common sense and common humanity all point to the conference table. It is the constant endeavour of Her Majesty's Government to assist this process.

The right hon. Gentleman has explained his vote, but I find it difficult to follow his logic. I believe that it would be better if there were no vote at present. This country is in the position of cochairman. We want to do all that we can in this regard, and if there is a vote I feel that it can only confuse matters. But if there is a vote, and if a challenge is to be made, I know where my right hon. Friend and I will vote on this occasion.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 260.

Division No. 179.]
AYES
(6.45 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Albu, Austen
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Allen, Scholefield
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hamling, William


Ashley, Jack
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Ashton, Joe
Deakins, Eric
Harper, Joseph


Atkinson, Norman
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Barnes, Michael
Dempsey, James
Hattersley, Roy


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Doig, Peter
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Baxter, William
Dormand, J. D.
Heffer, Eric S.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Horam, John


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunn, James A.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bishop, E. S.
Dunnett, Jack
Huckfield, Leslie


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Booth, Albert
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Ellis, Tom
Hunter, Adam


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
English Michael
Irvine Rt. Hn Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Evans, Fred
Janner, Grevllle


Buchan, Norman
Ewing, Henry
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Faulds Andrew
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
John, Brynmor


Cant, R. B 
Foley, Maurice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)




Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Foot, Michael
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Forrester, John
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Concannon, J. D.
Freeson, Reginald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Galpern, Sir Myer
Kaufman, Gerald


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Garrett, W. E.
Kelley, Richard


Crawshaw, Richard
Gilbert, Dr. John
Kerr, Russell


Cronin, John
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Kinnock, Neil


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Golding, John
Lambie, David


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Gourlay, Harry
Lamborn, Harry




Lamond, James
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Silverman, Julius


Latham, Arthur
Moyle, Roland
Skinner, Dennis


Lawson, George
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Leadbitter, Ted
Murray, Ronald King
Spearing, Nigel


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Oakes, Gordon
Spriggs, Leslie


Leonard, Dick
Ogden, Eric
Stallard, A. W.


Lestor, Miss Joan
O'Halloran, Michael
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Orbach, Maurice
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Orme, Stanley
Strang, Gavin


Lipton, Marcus
Oswald, Thomas
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lomas, Kenneth
Padley, Walter
Swain, Thomas


Loughlin, Charles
Paget, R. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Palmer, Arthur
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Pavitt, Laurie
Tinn, James


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pentland, Norman
Torney, Tom


McBride, Neil
Perry, Ernest G.
Tuck, Raphael


McCartney, Hugh
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Varley, Eric G.


McElhone, Frank
Prescott, John
Wainwright, Edwin


McGuire, Michael
Price J. T. (Westhoughton)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Price, William (Rugby)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mackie, John
Probert, Arthur
Wallace, George


Maclennan, Robert
Rankln, John
Watkins, David


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Weitzman, David


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rees Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wellbeloved, James


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Richard Ivor
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitehead, Phillip


Marsden, F.
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Whitlock, William


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Roper, John
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rose, Paul B. 
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mayhew, Christopher
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Meacher, Michael
Rowlands, Ted
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Sandelson, Neville
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mendelson, John
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mikardo, Ian
Shore, Rt. Hn. peter (Stepney)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Millan, Bruce
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Woof, Robert


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Milne, Edward
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwtch)
Mr. Tom Pendry.


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Sillars, James





NOES


Adley, Robert
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Clegg, Walter
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Cooke, Robert
Goodhart, Philip


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Coombs, Derek
Goodhew, Victor


Astor, John
Cooper, A. E.
Gorst, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Cordle, John
Gower, Raymond


Awdry, Daniel
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Cormack, Patrick
Gray, Hamish


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Costain, A. P.
Green, Alan


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Crouch, David
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Crowder, F. P.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J


Bell, Ronald
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grylls, Michael


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Gummer, J. Selwyn


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dean, Paul
Gurden, Harold


Blaker, Peter
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hall Miss Joan (Keighley)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Dixon, Piers
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Body, Richard
Drayson, G. B.
Hall-Davis, A G F 


Boscawen, Robert
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hamilton Michael (Salisbury)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dykes, Hugh
Hannam, John (Exetre)


Bowden, Andrew
Eden, Sir John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Haselhurst, Alan


Bray, Ronald
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hastings, Stephen


Brewis, John
Elliott, R. W. (N'C'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Havers, Michael


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Emery, Peter
Hawkins, Paul


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Eyre, Reginald
Hay, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Farr, John
Hayhoe, Barney


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fell, Anthony
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bryan, Paul
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Heseltine, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)




Buck, Antony
Fidler, Michael
Hicks, Robert


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Higgins, Terence L.


Burden, F. A.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hiley, Joseph


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Fortescue, Tim
Holland, Philip


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Foster, Sir John
Hordern, Peter


Cary, Sir Robert
Fowler, Norman
Hornby, Richard


Channon, Paul
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Chapman, Sydney
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gardner, Edward
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Churchill, W. S.
Gibson-Watt, David
Hunt. John







Hutchison, Michael Clark
More, Jasper
Sinclair, Sir George


Iremonger, T. L.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Morrison, Charles
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Mudd, David
Soref, Harold


Jessel, Toby
Murton, Oscar
Speed, Keith


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Spence, John


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Neave, Airey
Sproat, Iain


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stainton, Keith


Kershaw, Anthony
Normanton, Tom
Stanbrook, Ivor


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Nott, John
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Kinsey, J. R.
Onslow, Cranley
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Kirk, Peter
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Kitson, Timothy
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stokes, John


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Osborn, John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Knox, David
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Sutcliffe, John




Tapsell, Peter


Lambton, Lord
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lamont, Norman
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Lane, David
Parkinson, Cecil
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Langford-Hoit, Sir John
Percival, Ian
Tebbit, Norman


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Temple, John M.


Le Marchant, Spencer
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pink, R. Bonner
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Longden, Sir Gilbert

Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Loveridge, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J Enoch
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Luce, R. N.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Trew, Peter


MacArthur, Ian
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Tugendhat, Christopher


McCrindle, R. A.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


McLaren, Martin
Quennell, Miss J. M.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Raison, Timothy
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Waddington, David


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Redmond, Robert
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Walker Smith Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Maddan, Martin
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Warren, Kenneth


Madel, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Marten, Neil
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wiggin, Jerry


Mather, Carol
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Maude, Angus
Ridsdale, Julian
Winterton, Nicholas


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Mawby, Ray
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Woodnutt, Mark


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rost, Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Younger, Hn. George


Miscampbell, Norman
Scott, Nicholas



Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire,W)
Sharples, Richard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Moate, Roger
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Mr. Michael Jopling.


Montgomery, Fergus
Simeons, Charles

Question accordingly negatived

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

(Clauses 1, 9, 12, 63, 64, 71, 73, 110, and 112 and Schedule 4)

Considered in Committee [Progress, 11th May]

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 4

ZERO-RATING

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 101, line 34, at end add:

GROUP 14—SPORT

Item No.

1. Sport Admission Charges.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss the following Amendments: No. 53 in page 101, line 34, at end add:

GROUP 14—SPORT

Item No.

I. Admission to football grounds.

No. 78, in line 34, at end add:

GROUP 14—ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL

Item No.

1. Football League game admission charges.

No. 96, in line 34, at end add:

GROUP 14—RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL

Item No.

1. Rugby League game admission charges.

and No. 120, in line 34, at end add:

GROUP 14—SCOTTISH FOOTBALL CLUBS

Item No.

1. Admission to football grounds in Scotland.

Mr. Howell: The effect of value added tax upon sport is a matter of considerable concern to all sports bodies. There are probably 70 different sports played in this country which are in affiliation to the Sports Council. Most of those sports will want their case represented today. That would be an impossible proposition for anyone moving the Amendment and indeed for the Minister who had to reply. However, I assure

those sports that the fact I am selecting only one or two for mention in no way detracts from the case for the other sports. I am sure the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will accept that position.
The one matter about which all sports bodies are of one mind is the iniquity of the proposal to impose value added tax on admission charges to sport. Very rarely do the sports bodies come together to mount anything approaching a political campaign. I use the word "political" with a small "p", not in the sense of a party political campaign. I am well aware that the sports bodies have properly lobbied and had undertakings and expressions of sympathy from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee about the tremendous burden to sport of a 10 per cent. value added tax. As I said, the sports bodies have come together and written to every hon. Member and the dozen or so most important and influential governing bodies in sport. I am grateful for that, as it saves me having to read to the Committee the letter which was sent.
We are not talking about a tax on equipment. The sports bodies, like other bodies, whatever they think about value added tax, accept that they could not be in a special position regarding the buying of equipment. They do not like it, but if it becomes the law of the land they accept that that law applies to them. The Amendment is exclusively concerned with what the sports bodies regard as the monstrous proposal that value added tax should be paid on admission charges to sports events.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be too exclusive. Will he tell the Committee what will happen to the rate of tax on equipment as a result of changing from purchase tax to value added tax?

Mr. Howell: I do not want to follow that line at this early stage. We have plenty of time and will come back to it. We are dealing here with the principle of the application of VAT to admission charges. That is the essential point of our objection and of the sports bodies' case.
The hon. Gentleman had a distinguished athletic career. When I asked


the British Amateur Athletic Board what it was doing about making representations, it said: "The man to whom we should be making our representations will be confounding us at the Dispatch Box in the course of the debate." That seems to be the case, so we shall listen with added interest to anything he has to say.
The sports bodies regard the principle and the imposition of value added tax upon admission charges as a reintroduction of the old entertainment tax which they fought for 40 years and in the end were successful in defeating. I concede that success was mainly through the endeavour of the Government who in the end were responsible for removing that tax. They should be given credit for that.
Therefore, the Committee will understand that the sports organisations find it even more inconceivable that the right hon. Gentleman, who in the end accepted the case for the removal of entertainment tax from sport, should now reimpose it in this changed form. That it is an entertainment tax, there can be no doubt.
Entertainment tax, the Committee will recall, was not removed at a stroke, to use a popular jargon, but was removed at three strokes. First, it went off amateur sport. Then, by what can only be described as one of those quirks, it was removed from cricket in isolation by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Finally, in 1958, it went altogether. That was a matter of comfort to us.
Now we have this proposal before us. I shall shortly try to show the Committee the effect of this burden upon and the serious situation this brings for sport. I start, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment with responsibility for sport would expect—I am glad that he is present—by quoting what the newly appointed chairman of the Sports Council, Dr. Roger Bannister, had to say about this matter.
In many ways, as the Minister will know, this is something of a test case. He and I have had little arguments whether we should have a completely independent Sports Council. There is plenty to be said on both sides of that argument. The clinching argument from

his point of view is that an independent Sports Council would be outside the Government machine, would be listened to, and its advice would be accepted by the Government. This is the first time that that proposition has been put to the test.
Dr. Bannister, in a report in the Daily Telegraph on 24th November last year, said:
Sport needs encouragement, not stiffer taxation. I thought this had been accepted in Whitehall when the old entertainment tax on sport was abolished.
A little later in the same article, speaking for the whole of sport, he said:
I cannot see the logic of creating an independent sports council charged with the task of developing sport nationally and then imposing VAT in such a way that it may cripple many of the sports we are trying to help.
That is the nub of part of the case which the Government have to answer today.
About six or seven years ago sport started to receive a modest contribution from the Government for its development. This was started by the now Lord Chancellor. That was taken up by the Labour Government in which I had the honour to serve in a similar capacity to the Minister who is responsible for sport.
The financial contribution towards the development of sport is very much a shoestring contribution compared with the grants to the Arts Council whose affairs the House discussed last week.
Another aspect of the financial argument needs to be pointed out. The Arts Council receives three or four times more Government money for the development of the arts than sport. No one in sport has ever objected to the amount which the Arts Council gets, although, compared with the massive numbers of people we are trying to assist, we are badly off.
Sport has one other consideration which should be, and I am sure is, uppermost in the Chancellor's mind. The Exchequer, by means of taxation, particularly from the betting tax on pools and other forms of betting, already takes out of sport a considerable sum. The Minister might be able to tell us the Government's income from the betting duty on pools, for example, when we get to the detailed subject of football. I am


sure the Chancellor will accept that there is an earnest desire and a great financial interest on the part of the Government to keep sport in good heart and health and in a sound position. The sports bodies believe that this will be a crippling tax upon them. It is therefore a serious matter for the Chancellor to consider.

Mr. David Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I apologise for interrupting him. I am following his argument with great interest. Could he guide me about the kind of admission charges which are now being charged by the groups and sports societies to which he is referring?

Mr. Howell: If I followed that bait and dealt with the 64 different sports and the millions of people involved in them, I should be here for the next three hours giving the hon. Gentleman a catalogue of the charges, because they vary enormously.

Mr. David Mitchell: By what amount?

Mr. Howell: One can pay £5 for a Cup Final ticket, but if one goes to watch Altrincham and Sale Football Club in the Chancellor's constituency, one does not pay anything like £5 for a ticket. These are relative matters. Therefore, I hope I can carry the hon. Gentleman with me in saying that there will not be much purpose in either of us pursuing this line of argument.

Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has put the upper limit at £5. Will he indicate the general run at the lower end?

Mr. Howell: One can pay as little as 5p to watch a schoolboys' swimming gala. This is an impossible proposition to follow. We shall come back to one or two interesting examples.
The last thing that I want to do from this Dispatch Box today is to make a speech in a party political spirit because to the best of my knowledge and after six years' experience I think I can say that not many of the administrators of sport would galvanise themselves into action to vote in favour of the party which I support, but as they have told me what they think of the Government's

proposals I assume that they feel even more strongly about the matter than I do.
I start with a letter from my county cricket club. Its secretary, one of our finest cricket administrators, Mr. Leslie Deakins, says:
If the suggested 10 per cent. tax is imposed it is obvious that it will far outweigh any saving that may be made on the cancellation of Purchase Tax and S.E.T., and it will in effect put County Clubs back in the same position they were in prior to the abolition of Entertainments Tax—a step that was necessary at the time to their very survival…this despite the existence of a strong Supporters' Association and a sound membership…We are at the moment living in an age when it is the Government's apparent desire to introduce increased leisure, and at the same time to provide opportunities for the public to take advantage but this will be of little value if, at the same time, the Organisations whose pleasant duty it is to provide leisure activities are faced with a Tax of this kind, which in some instances will seriously reduce their ability to serve their public, and in others literally force them out of existence. It has also to be remembered that the present Government is asking everyone in the country 'to stand on their own two feet' and then proceeds to make it increasingly difficult for them to do
so.
Those are impeccable sentiments and they are motivated, not by any political factors but simply by a desire to express the feelings of many sports administrators.

Captain Walter Elliot: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that financially and in the number of supporters it attracts county cricket is at a low ebb. How does he account for that fact when there is no tax at all on the sport?

Mr. Howell: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is right. County cricket is at a low ebb, but the only logic of his intervention is that it ought to be put out of business altogether. I have never heard anybody on either side of the House make that point before.

Captain W. Elliot: I am suggesting that county cricket is at a low ebb for reasons entirely unconnected with financial matters.

Mr. Howell: I do not think that that is altogether fair. Obviously there are conflicting opinions about the exciting and challenging nature of cricket in this country today, and we all have our theories about how the matter can he put right, but the hon. and gallant


Gentleman is not being altogether fair. Because of the Gillette Cup and other competitions there has been a remarkable upsurge of public interest in the game.
Where cricket is suffering considerably is in the three-day county game, which to a certain extent has been overtaken by the age in which we live. I could give the Committee a long dissertation on this topic. Suffice it to say that it is much to the credit of the cricket authorities that they keep the three-day game going, because if they did not cricket would lose a great deal. If cricket is to mean a swashbuckling performance for 40 overs for each side, then cricket as many understand and love it will soon die. I welcome the Benson and Hedges Competition as 1 do the Gillette Cup Competition as being designed to give cricket life and prosperity, but I do not kid myself—and I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not kid himself, either—that the long-term salvation of cricket as a sport—one might almost say a religion can be allowed to depend on the one-day game.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman is a Warwickshire supporter, whereas I am a Worcestershire supporter, but he has missed the point. It is the inclemency of the English weather that is the principal cause of the decline in popularity of cricket. For example, on 29th April I turned up at the Worcestershire County Cricket ground to watch the first of a three-day game, Worcestershire versus the Australians, but not a ball was bowled. It poured with rain all day.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Howell: Dr. Grace faced a similar problem. Cricket has to be played out of doors, and from the first day on which the noble doctor took up his bat he had to face the difficulties of the weather. I do not think that we ought to proceed too far with that.
Whatever the gates at cricket, the game is an essential part of the English scene. Indeed, it is part of the history of England and there is still tremendous public interest in it. It is enough for my purposes to say that if in the present parlous state of the game, the Government add to its difficulties by imposing this tax they will do a disservice to cricket and therefore to the nation as a whole
The sport of athletics is also facing an extremely serious situation. Athletics is not a sport which attracts tremendous gates. Its activities can be associated with a four-year period. They reach their peak in the year when the Olympic Games are held. I have here some figures for last year produced by the British Amateur Athletic Board. If ever a sport struggled manfully, with only a small income at its disposal, to survive and provide opportunities for the public, it is the sport of athletics.
Last year there were three principal events for the British Amateur Athletic Board. The first of these was at Meadow-bank, in Scotland, which produced an income of £2,304. Then there was a match at Crystal Palace against West Germany. That was easily the highlight of the year, and it produced an income of £6,300. There followed a match against France at Portsmouth which, I am sorry to tell the Committee, produced an income of only £200.
Those three events produced a total income of £9,000. Under these proposals the British Amateur Athletic Board would have to pay £900 in VAT. I come back to the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot). It is not the case that large numbers of the public want to get in to see these meetings but are locked out. It is not possible to increase charges without affecting the gate, and imposition of this tax will have a serious effect on athletics.
Less than an hour ago Mr. Arthur Gold, the Secretary of the British Amateur Athletic Board phoned and asked me to make the point that the proposed rate of tax would mean the board having to pay £900 out of its income of £9,000 last year. But what is likely to happen in future years when there is not as much interest in athletics as there was last year? Let us suppose that the British athletics team does not cover itself with glory at the Olympic Games, although we all hope that it will. The first year after the Olympic Games is, in any event an off-peak year, and if the team does not do particularly well the task of getting gates anything like those of last year will be tremendous. The Minister will be acquainted with the problems of athletics. He must bear in mind that they frequently, if not usually, make


a loss, which is bound to be the case with gates of that size.
Participants in athletics cannot be charged large sums to contribute towards the running of their sport. Competitors already make considerable financial sacrifices for the privilege of representing their country. In addition to travelling to small meetings all over the country they have a great many athletic commitments to meet.
The same applies to swimming. The Amateur Swimming Association is not in such a parlous financial state as the athletics authorities, although it has considerable difficulties. The Association has raised an interesting point which although it may have been discussed in our earlier debates should receive further comment from the Minister. It asks what will be the position if clubs organise events on its behalf. Clubs are frequently asked to organise championships. Will their efforts count for VAT purposes? Will each individual club be assessed separately, even though it is organise a championship on behalf of the governing body of the parent association?
The Association estimates that the income from swimming in this context is between £10,000 and £12,000 a year. It must be remembered that there is only limited seating accommodation for spectators. If one correlated the incomes of the various swimming clubs the sum would, of course, be considerably greater.
Boxing also deserves a mention. I raise the subject in the hope that emotions will not be stirred. Differing views are held about this sport on each side of boxing—

Sir G. Nabarro: Do not forget wrestling.

Mr. Howell: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about professional wrestling, then I do not regard that as a sport.

Sir G. Nabarro: Shame!

Mr. Howell: It is entertainment.

Sir G. Nabarro: Professional wrestling is and always has been classified as a sport, and notably women's wrestling.

Mr. Howell: When I was in office I inquired into this matter of the relationship between sport and entertainment. I found that the majority of professional

wrestlers were affiliated to the Variety Artistes Federation, and for me that settled the matter. I remain of the opinion that professional wrestling is primarily entertainment.
The Committee may be interested to know that the gross takings from professional boxing in 1970 were £372,852, and there was no SET or purchase tax to be offset. This means that £37,300 will be claimed in VAT, when no tax has been levied since 1958.
Rugby League is a sport which should also receive our attention, particularly in a week when its Cup Final has been played at Wembley. The governing body's enterprising national secretary, Mr. Bill Fallowfield, made the position clear in a recent letter in which he pointed out that the difficulties that will face the sport will make it extremely difficult for those who administer it to sustain the sport, particularly in the North.
Hon. Members should accept that certain areas of the country which do not enjoy the lush entertainment that exists in London will be penalised if this tax is levied on sport in the way the Government propose. Rugby League is particularly popular in the North and those living in, for example, Lancashire and Yorkshire will be greatly hit unless the Amendment is accepted.
I come to my sport of football and I will be brief because a number of my hon. Friends wish to speak of the plight of sport in their constituencies.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I think that in calculating the 10 per cent. tax which it is proposed to levy my hon. Friend has mistakenly under-estimated the sum that will be removed from sporting bodies. In addition to the 10 per cent., additional tax will be levied on programmes and all the services and facilities that go with the sports which my hon. Friend mentioned. In some instances it could be 10 per cent. plus another 10 per cent. or even 20 per cent.

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is right if he is talking of the whole effect of VAT. For the purpose of the Amendment we must confine ourselves to admission charges. That is what I am doing and that is the source of the major dissatisfaction on the part of the sporting bodies.

Mr. Higgins: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman was unable to see the expression on the faces of some of his hon. Friends seated behind him when he referred to confining the debate to admission charges, for he seems to have overlooked the fact that there is a deduction of input from output tax. One must, therefore, take into account what is levied on earlier items in the progression, such as programmes and so on.

Mr. Howell: No doubt the Minister will tell us what representations he has been making to the Government on behalf of athletics and sport. I am informed by the sports bodies, especially those which have come together to discuss this issue, that the position could be even worse than the case I am adducing.

Mr. Higgins: We are making full allowance for input tax, which is completely deductible in terms of output tax. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will bear this in mind.

Mr. Howell: None of that would have any effect on admission charges.

Mr. Higgins: Mr. Higgins indicated dissent.

Mr. Howell: Perhaps I have misunderstood the Financial Secretary. One cannot offset the amounts that will be levied by, for example, reducing admission charges. [Interruption.] We are talking about the effect that VAT will have on the number of people who pass through the turnstiles. At the end of the day that is the only aspect that matters from the point of view of the sports organisations.

Mr. Higgins: Mr. Higgins indicated dissent.

Mr. Howell: It is all very well for the Financial Secretary to shake his head in disagreement. Perhaps we are missing the point. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will not miss him, unless he fails to reply adequately to this case. I am sure that we will find the Minister's contribution even more illuminating than anything my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) might have said.
Mr. Dennis Follows, Secretary of the Football Association, a man who is not given to extravagant language—is a man of moderate and temperate views—

concludes his statement on this subject by saying:
The argument, therefore, that value added tax is a fair replacement for selective employment tax and purchase tax is a 'phoney'. It is clearly an additional burden which must be and is being vigorously opposed by all the football interests.
He points out that for the first time the clubs—this applies particularly harshly to the smaller clubs—will have to erect a tax gathering machine. Not since 1958 have the clubs had to indulge in much an exercise, he points out.

7.30 p.m.

The Committee may be familiar with what happens at the Badminton three-day horse trials. The local "squirearchy", who regard it as their duty to maintain the trials, stand with their supporters at the various gates and collect such money as they can from people entering. But all that must go. The sort of voluntary, easy approach to the collection of entrance fees must go under these proposals. The whole panoply of the law has to be established at the Badminton three-day horse trials and at many small sports grounds to ensure that the tax is being collected. It would be a serious matter if there were any tax evasion when the law is upon the Statute Book.

Mr. Ray Carter: And polo matches.

Mr. Howell: We will not talk about polo matches. I am not a great expert on them. No doubt that is a subject on which its principal supporter might express himself with even more than his customary eloquence if given the opportunity.
The Football Association has produced a fantastic amount of information about the situation with which it is faced. It has kindly sent me a schedule of replies, taken exactly as they came in, from the first 40 clubs which replied to a questionnaire as to what is being paid now by football clubs in SET and purchase tax, and what, on last year's figures, would be the situation for these clubs.
Although football is thought to be a very wealthy sport, we all know that by far the majority of professional clubs in England, Wales and Scotland constantly make a loss. The total of purchase tax and SET which these 40 clubs paid


last year was £150,660. If they had had to pay 10 per cent. of last year's gates as SET—the position we now face—they would have had to pay in tax £555,000. In other words, the imposition of tax on Association Football, under these proposals, is four times the amount of tax that the clubs are now paying in purchase tax and SET. That is even worse when one remembers that they are not asking for their equipment, jerseys and so on, and all the equipment that they buy, to be exempted from VAT. This is in addition to the £555,000 which these 40 clubs alone have to pay. The conclusion of the Football Association that the tax burden on football would be at least four if not five times as much as it now is cannot be challenged.

Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman seems to have misunderstood what the tax is all about. He says that it is a 10 per cent. tax on the charges for admission. He is not making allowance for the input tax.

Mr. Howell: It would still be on admission charges, whatever the hon. Gentleman says about it.

Mr. Higgins: Mr. Higgins indicated dissent.

Mr. Howell: If I am wrong, no doubt when the hon. Gentleman replies he will explain how the £555,000 can be offset against anything else?

Mr. James Hamilton: My hon. Friend is omitting another important point arising from the Ibrox disaster in Glasgow. The Wheatley Commission's findings will mean that virtually every club in the country, including my club, Glasgow Celtic, will require to carry out improvements. That will be a further imposition on many smaller clubs. The larger clubs will be able to do this, but the smaller clubs will not. Consequently, this could mean the demise of football in many parts of the country.

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is right, but lie has reached my conclusion a few minutes before I would have reached it. I shall return to that point.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Miss Harvie Anderson. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend has touched upon only some of the clubs. I should like, all would probably all hon. Members,

the full details. It would take time if my hon. Friend were to read them out. Would it be in order, with the permission of the Committee, to ask that my hon. Friend's figures be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT? The facts and figures will be useful to the Committee.

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member will have heard what his hon. Friend has said. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Lewis: Would my hon. Friend care to do that?

Mr. Howell: I should be delighted to have any facts of mine circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, if that is possible. But I can help my hon. Friend by saying that, if he tries to catch your eye, Miss Harvie Anderson, I shall see that he Bets the figures for West Ham United, a club close to his heart, which I was not about to quote.
I shall take a few clubs at random to show the effect upon them. First, for Liverpool, which is thought to be one of the very rich clubs, the estimated total of SET and purchase tax last year was £9,100. On 10 per cent. of last year's gate its value added tax commitment would be £52,640. That would virtually wipe out the club's profit for that year. But Liverpool is one of the richer clubs which is fortunate enough to be able to make a profit. A different situation arises when those figures are related to other clubs. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip is not present, for Millwall—always an interesting club to examine—has a present tax commitment of £6,127. Its value added tax commitment would be over £9,000. That is despite the fact that it made a loss for the year of £72,000 on its reparations as a football club. A burden of this sort is very serious for that club.
These figures are very interesting. Middlesbrough made a payment last year of about £3,600. If Middlesbrough had to pay 10 per cent. on VAT, and someone has to pay it—it is no good the Chancellor laughing it has to come from gate money—it would amount to an imposition on this club of £17,700, and that amount of VAT on the gate money has to he considered in association with Middlesbrough's loss last year of £87,000.


This club is already in dire financial difficulties and is struggling to keep its second division status.
I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without referring to the Altrincham Association Football Club, a club well known to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman has no doubt already tried, obviously not very successfully, judging by the letter I have with me, to explain to that club what his hon. Friend is saying, that the position has been overstated. The amount of SET that Altrincham Football Club paid last year was £170. The amount of purchase tax paid was £100. So the club's total tax commitment last year was £270. It had receipts of £9,000, which would mean under these proposals a VAT commitment of £900. One cannot imagine that even in Altrincham, with all the inspiration that the Chancellor can give to his local football club, thousands of supporters are willing and anxious to rush through the gates to make up for the hardship which the Chancellor is to impose upon his own club. Last year the Altrincham club made a loss of £13,500, to which loss the Chancellor proposes to add.
I turn, finally, to the point rightly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) about the Wheatley Report, which has just been issued. This very interesting document was born of the great tragedies of two Scottish clubs. Lord Wheatley has done a first-class job in telling us what the new obligations of the clubs should be with a view to securing public safety. The Government have announced that they accept the Report. Lord Wheatley says in paragraph 60 that he considered with Treasury officials the prospect of the Government making money available to clubs which are to have imposed upon them a considerable additional financial responsibility for making their grounds safe. Lord Wheatley said that he got no joy out of the Treasury when he asked about the prospect of Government help for making football grounds safe.
The football authorities tell me, and I have no doubt that they tell the Government, that the proposals before us will mean three new financial burdens for them. I hope that the Minister of State,

who has interrupted me several times, when he tells the Committee that the clubs will do well out of these proposals will also answer this detailed case. The inflationary cost effect on clubs, on the normal cost of their operations this year, has been estimated to be at least 10 per cent. to 12 per cent. On top of that, the Government are to impose the burden necessitated by the clubs complying with the Wheatley Report, and that will cost many millions of pounds to implement. The Government very properly demand that grounds should be made safe but, in imposing this financial obligation on clubs, they make no commitment to assist the clubs, even though it is from these very clubs that the Exchequer receives such an enormous income as a result of the taxation of one-third on football pool betting. Those are two tremendous impositions on football clubs.
On top of the normal inflationary increase and on top of the tremendous cost of implementing the Wheatley Report, there is to be the 10 per cent. VAT. One leading football legislator can be forgiven for saying to me, "What on earth have the Government got it in for football for?" All this is being imposed simultaneously on football in a manner which football cannot accept. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of the problems facing association football.
The cumulative effects of all this could be very serious for sport, and certainly for football. I believe that the case has been more than adequately made out for the Amendment. Spokesmen of all political affiliations and of none, who are struggling to maintain sport because of its tremendous importance in our national life, believe that the Government are dealing a grievous blow at their efforts to entertain the country and to provide healthy opportunities for young people to enjoy sport. If ever a proposition should be pressed to a Division, this is it.

7.45 p.m.

Sir G. Nabarro: I oppose the Amendment on a matter of principle. Before stating my reasons for opposing the Amendment, I declare my interest in sporting ventures of a wide range and application. I am the President of the Broadway United Football Club. I am


the President of the Broadway Cricket Club. I am the President of the Vale of Evesham Swimming Pool Association. I am a patron of the Worcestershire Swimming Association. I am a member of the Worcestershire County Cricket Club. I have other interests in a wide range of sporting activities.
The reason I oppose the Amendment is simply that the amount of special pleading which has gone on in Committee on the Bill to exclude this service or that service, to exclude this interest or that interest, to exclude children's clothing, children's shoes, surgical appliances, proprietary medicines, funerals, cremations, and now sport—

Mr. Carter: Spirits.

Sir G. Nabarro: If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) would like to intervene, I will give way at once.

Mr. Carter: In a minute.

Sir G. Nabarro: No. The hon. Gentleman should not shout from a sedentary position. Does he wish to intervene?Mr. Carter: Will the hon. Member explain why he has listed all those exclusions when he has his name to a number of Amendments asking specifically for exclusions, one of them being whisky—spirits?

Sir G. Nabarro: I will explain at once. I explained it last Thursday morning at about one o'clock. Alcoholic beverages are already taxed to the extent of approximately £1,000 million in a full year. So far as I am aware, sport is not taxed already to the extent of £1,000 million. Sport is hardly taxed at all, save only for the purchase tax which is applicable to sporting equipment. Purchase tax on sporting equipment is at 25 per cent. Purchase tax is a wholesale tax. The value added tax is a retail tax. Putting them both on the same basis, I declare that a purchase tax of 25 per cent. wholesale is equal to a value added tax retail of 15 per cent. to 16 per cent. Therefore, by the very act of substituting value added tax for the purchase tax on sporting equipment my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is at a stroke reducing the tax on sporting equipment by approximately 10 per cent.
My objection to this kind of Amendment is simply that we are substituting value added tax for purchase tax and selective employment tax, to end very largely the violently discriminatory character of the purchase tax. It would be out of order on this Amendment if I were to seek to demonstrate how violently discriminatory purchase tax has always been. The fact remains that by a 10 per cent. value added tax we are ending a great deal of the discrimination.
My position has been made perfectly clear throughout a number of speeches on value added tax. If I had my way the value added tax would be applied to all food, all fuel, all transport and all of those items which are excluded in the Finance Bill, save only the remission on exports. The wider the tax in its application, the lower the rate of tax might be. Were it applied right across the board the rate of value added tax would not be 10 per cent.; my calculation is that it would be about 4 to 5 per cent. If we are to enter the Common Market, it would be in consonance with the European practice of applying the tax across the whole sphere of goods and services, including food, which will undoubtedly be the position with which we would have to harmonise in the coming years. It is very easy to tug at the heart chords and to say how hard up the sporting clubs are and how much their financial position will be worsened if the tax is applied. I have a letter upstairs—unanswered, because it arrived on my desk only this morning—from the Worcestershire County Cricket Club, a small club because it comes from an area with a relatively small population and therefore has a relatively small market upon which to draw. But it is a club of illustrious record, having twice in recent years won the county cricket championship. It is losing money today in spite of the energetic efforts of the supporters' club. I do not doubt that it will he marginally worse off through having to pay VAT, and it would be dishonest to try to plead any other basis. But I am prepared to sacrifice the Worcestershire County Cricket Club's marginal deficit arising from the value added tax in order to pursue the important principle that no goods and services should escape the tax.
Every time the Chancellor is tempted by pressure or otherwise to exempt a


particular product or a particular service, ipso facto he does two things: he brings in train a vast volume of additional pleading for special treatment. Every time he exempts a particular class of goods or a type of service from the incidence of the VAT, he places a larger burden on the remaining goods and services which are paying the tax.
Why, for example, should cricket be excluded from the tax in order to increase the burden of tax on children's shoes? Why should children's shoes be excluded in order to increase the burden on funeral services and cremations? Why should funeral services and cremations be excluded in order to increase the burden of the tax on proprietary medicines and surgical appliances? The volume of special pleading is made infinitely worse every time the Chancellor of the Exchequer succumbs either to the pressure of private Members in this House or the diktats of his own conscience.

Mr. Brian Walden: I am very interested in what the hon. Member is saying but I think he is falling below his usual standards of fiscal logic. It may be true that there will be a marginal gain on the equipment tax that is paid by cricket clubs, but the buying of shirts, bats, stores and rollers and such things is not the decisive factor in the entertainment industry. The decisive factor is what is charged on the gate, and the tax will mean a charge at the gate which will force attendances down. That is the significant point.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am not disputing that at all and I am not falling below the standard of fiscal logic as the hon. Member suggests. I prefer to leave a Treasury Ministery replying to the debate to give the precise details of revenue and the comparative sums entailed, because no private Member can command expertise of that kind, save only from Treasury sources. What I believe is indubitable logic in this application is this simple proposition: whereas the sporting clubs themselves will be worse off financially because of the tax on their admission charges, they will be marginally better off from two sources. The first of the two sources is that they will be relieved of paying selective employment tax on their employees. I have not looked it

up and I have not asked parliamentary Questions which would be the only way to elicit the information, so that I do not know how much selective employment tax was paid by clubs in respect of professional footballers. I doubt whether it has ever been stated.
The second source—and here I correct the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden)—will be provided by a decline, which is not a marginal decline, in the taxation on sporting equipment. It is, in fact, a very large decline from 25 per cent. to about 15 to 16 per cent. Whereas I admit at once that the purchase of footballs, jerseys and other kinds of sporting equipment is not a major part of the expenditure, of a sporting club—I do not dispute that it is a small part—nevertheless the rate of tax has almost been halved.
I shall incur odium from the numerous sporting ventures with which I am associated, directly or indirectly in my constituency or other—wiseonly last Wednesday evening I was guest of honour at a the annual dinner of the International Sports Fellowship. Opprobrious comments will be made about my conduct by the members of the Worcester County Cricket Club, I have no doubt, and they will threaten the withdrawal of their support from my Conservative cause. But I shall be bound by fiscal equity and logic, contrary to what was indicated by the hon. Member the Member for Birmingham, All Saints, in this important matter and demand that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor does not relax in any way the application of value added tax across the whole sphere as denoted in the Bill. I shall oppose Amendments calling for relaxation, save only in respect of alcoholic beverages. These beverages are already taxed to the extent of about 1,000 million and it would be wholly inequitable, if not reprehensible, if they were subject to double taxation.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If the Broadway United Football Club and the Broadway Swimming Club—

Sir G. Nabarro: No! You have got it wrong—the Broadway Cricket Club.

Mr. Dalyell: Very well, the Broadway Cricket Club. If those organisations are in any way typical of the small football


and cricket clubs throughout the country, I suspect that we have been listening to their ex-president, by the time this Committee stage is over.
I was wondering whether we could have one thing straight at an early stage in the debate. This arose out of the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) and the Financial Secretary. I want to know what it was precisely that the Financial Secretary was trying to tell us in his intervention. Was he saying that admission charges will not be raised, because all the information we have is that there is considerable elasticity in this and that if admission charges are raised we can expect that in all but the most famous football clubs attendances will go down. Is the Financial Secretary saying that in the view of the Treasury admission charges will not be raised? Is that the purport of his intervention? If not, what was he trying to say?
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) were right and the Financial Secretary was wrong in his intervention.

Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman knows enough about this tax, if his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath does not, to know that in arriving at the total tax burden, input tax is deducted from output tax and the tax is not 10 per cent. of the admission charges.

Mr. Dalyell: The input tax and the output tax may or may not be. What we want to know is this: are the Government denying that admission charges will be raised substantially? Of course the truth is that they will, and this is the subject of the pleadings we have had from a whole series of football clubs.
I want to argue the Scottish case. I have talked at great length to Desmond White chairman of Celtic. Celtic may be atypical, but we have to look at the top clubs first, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) knows that Celtic has been an extremely successful club.
These are the figures and I make no apology for going into them in detail. In season 1967–68, the total drawings were

£358,592. Of this the gate money was £330,228. The profit was £29,583. In the season 1968–69 drawings were £350,356 and the gate was £326,608. This club had a good run, not only in the Scottish Cup but in the European Cup. Yet the loss was £11,894. For season 1969–70 the total drawings were £473,349, the gate was £452,809 and the profits £63,439. For the season 1970–71, total drawings were £376,478, the gate was £359,410 and the profit £32,742.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dalyell: No.
The point is that with the value added tax the calculation of Desmond White, a trained accountant, is that in all these years except for one the club would be in the red. This is the story of an astoundingly successful club. In the figures Denis Follows gave to several of my hon. Friends, only the two Merseyside clubs were in a similarly strong financial position. If Celtic is to get into trouble, imagine the difficulties that many less successful and smaller clubs will have, especially, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) said, when they have not only VAT but in conjunction with that they have to face the full implications of implementing the Wheatley Committee report.
Reverting to Celtic, even to bring one part of a ground that has been modernised up to Wheatley standard would cost next year another £25,000 at least. This is the calculation of Desmond White. There are many grounds not up to the standard of Parkhead. There are many, including Ibrox, where vast sums of money are needed to bring them up to the standards which the Government accept. I hope that in the wind up to the debate the Government will clearly say where the money will come from for the implementation of the Wheatley Committee report. It makes no sense to have this kind of debate without a clear indication of how these clubs are to get the money.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant) is anxious to catch your eye, Miss Harvie Anderson, and if he is successful in doing so he will bring out the problems of a club such as Arsenal at Highbury. It makes no sense for the Government Front Bench to give us a reply which


does not go into the details of how they hope to implement Wheatley.
So far I have kept to the famous, big clubs. Consider, Edinburgh Hibernian, a medium-sized club. Mr. C. F. Graham, its secretary, points to an overdraft last year amounting to £36,473. This is a club which has gone into the final of the Scottish Cup yet which has considerable financial problems. Great sums of money will have to be found to bring Easter Road up to Wheatley standards. There are less successful clubs, such as Dunfermline Athletic, with whose accountant I spent a half-hour yesterday afternoon. This is a very sad story because the club is in debt to the extent of £40,000 and this will be the last straw that breaks the camel's back. The Dunfermline figures, which I will send to the Treasury, from Mr. McConville, their secretary, indicate the plight of these smaller clubs.
What this means in the view of accountants is that the survival of these clubs is at stake. Are clubs in the Scottish Second Division and, according to our briefing from Denis Follows, in the Third and Fourth Division of the English League expected to survive? My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) has a long list of figures relating to Mansfield Town.
In England the clubs that get into Europe, including the Fairs Cup, are the famous clubs. In Scotland we have a different problem because of the nature of our league, as a result of which clubs such as Dunfermline and Dundee get the opportunity from time to time to play in Europe. To undertake a tie in Eastern Europe costs £4,000 plus about another £1,500. Because of the rules of the European competition this has to be found out of the home gate. This is all right for Celtic, who can get a gate of £75,000. If it is Dunfermline the maximum gate is 18,000 to 19,000. It will be impossible for such clubs to take part in European competitions in future, if this proposal is approved. Mr. Lindsay, of Hearts, Vice-President of the Scottish League, thinks the future of Scottish football is at stake.
I had a phone call yesterday from Mr. Gordon, Secretary of Elgin City. It is a pity that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not here; Elgin is in his constituency. This is a club which, if it is lucky, has on average 1,000 of 1,500

spectators. It has debt of over £9,000, and, as with every other small club, the elasticity of demand is absolutely crucial. If Elgin City increases its entrance charge from 40p, its crowds will, in its opinion, diminish and its net income will be less.
Is that what the Government want? We are talking here about the grass roots of sport. In a sense, I care a good deal more about Elgin City, Bo'ness United and other junior clubs than I do about Celtic. Celtic, Arsenal, Leeds United and, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) knows, Manchester United can look after themselves. Smaller clubs may not be able to do so. The last straw could break the camel's back.
It is a question not only of the smaller clubs but of the smaller sports. I was talking yesterday to Alex Boyd, secretary of the Scottish Amateur Swimming Association. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath that if the English association is in relatively good financial fettle, the Scottish association certainly is not. It says that it will make losses on its galas. The maximum attendance is about 1,000. If the association is in a financial plight, the clubs are in an even worse financial plight. They do not know how they will make ends meet.
Organisations such as the Scottish Amateur Swimming Association and many English sports bodies rely on shoestring administration. From where are the administrators to come to collect a tax which is far more complicated than the entertainments tax of the 1950s? My hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath spoke a little lightheartedly about the problems of Badminton. I suspect that the horse show people will be able to look after themselves. But the burden which will be put on the grass roots sports administrators throughout the country is enormous. They do not know how they will cope with the tax.
This is not only a financially hard but a ludicrous tax from a Government who go round the hustings saying how they will simplify administration. This tax will make administration so complex that people will put stickers on their cars saying, "Come back SET, all is forgiven". I speak as an ex-president of the Scottish Amateur Basketball Association. It is a small sport. We are not a very grand


organisation but the numbers in the sport are increasing.
People who work in an amateur capacity in sport say that this tax is ludicrous. The Government should look at it again and at Amendment No. 53. I hope that we shall return to the matter, if not in Committee, then on Report. I have listened for many hours, last year and on previous occasions, to the Chief Secretary telling us how life will be simplified. Here is a classic case in which life can be simplified, and it is in the hon. Gentleman's power to do it.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) did not give way to me. When I tried to intervene in his speech, he was making the same point which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) had made. He was quoting the situation as it affected Celtic Football Club. The hon. Member for Small Heath had mentioned Middlesbrough. The impression which the hon. Members gave was that the income from attendances and profits were tied together. However, anybody who knows anything about football accountancy knows that a major item on the expenditure side or on the income side is the transfer of players. Anyone who knows anything about football accountancy knows that any club which is in danger of making a profit looks round for a player to buy because the cost of the player is written off in the year in which he is purchased. This is one way of deflating the income.
8.15 p.m.
One cannot simply say that Middlesbrough lost £87,000 and it is therefore proved that its loss would have been even greater if VAT were in operation. The club might have had its own reasons for choosing to buy or to sell players. The accounts of football clubs are not strictly comparable with the accounts of any other commercial enterprise. The hon. Gentleman was using statistics which were not strictly meaningful.

Mr. Denis Howell: It may be true in one or two isolated cases that a club is faced with making a profit and can therefore indulge in the luxury of buying a very expensive player in order to dispose of its profits. But that is a very limited

situation. Ninety per cent. of all football clubs consistently make losses. The Oldham Athletics and Newport Counties of this world do not make such profits that they cause problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Dunnett), who is chairman of Notts County, is not faced with the prospect of his club making such large profits that his problem is to dispose of them. The problem for most football club directors is the opposite. Year in and year out their clubs make losses.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman's point is valid, but unless he can assure us that, in the year in which it lost £87,000, Middlesbrough had not exercised its option, the figure which he quoted was not strictly valid. It is misleading to quote the income and loss and to say that the situation would have been worse or better if value added tax had been imposed. I know a certain amount about football accountancy.
No one would deny that the finances of sporting associations are not in a strong state. I speak as one who did a lot of athletics at one time, and I now spend quite a lot of time trying to help other people to enjoy athletics and to obtain the same pleasure from it that I once did—if "pleasure" is the right word. It is much more pleasurable with the benefit of hindsight than when I was struggling over the last 50 metres of a 400-metre race.
The hon. Member for West Lothian has not established that attendances will fall because of the imposition of VAT. We read of 5,000 spectators making the journey to Italy to watch football. We read that when Manchester United came to London 30,000 people came with them to watch them play. It is easy to say that an extra 3p or 4p will be the breaking point, but even 300p or 400p will not stop thousands of people travelling every week to watch their favourite club. I do not flinch from the fact that admission charges may go up, but I do not think that if Elgin City's attendance falls from 1,500 to 1,400 or 1,300 it will be a decisive factor in whether it remains in existence. I can think of many instances in which it will not be a decisive factor. I cannot believe that whether the Amateur Athletic Association survives will depend on the £800 or £900 VAT which it will pay.
The finances of sport must be examined, but the problem is much more deeply rooted. Immediately after the war 35,000 people paid entertainments tax to watch Oxford and Cambridge run against Harvard and Yale. Last year, with no tax, 1,100 people went to watch the same match. This does not add up to the fact that the tax is the crucial factor. The hon. Member for Small Heath knows better than anyone that one could not give away tickets to watch certain clubs, whereas other clubs are bombarded with applications for tickets, whatever price they charge. The hon. Gentleman said that sporting finances were in a bad state, but he did not prove that VAT will make them worse. He has made no case for saying that sports will disappear because of its imposititon. The problems of the AAA are there whether VAT is in existence or not, and a far more deep-rooted solution to the problems needs to be sought than trumpeting all these sorts of argument about VAT.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) that the simplicity of the tax and the low rate at which it is to be levied are absolutely crucial, and I believe that exceptions such as the hon. Gentlemen opposite have been seeking today will serve to create more of the anomalies about which they spend so much of their time complaining. It seems to me that they spend half of their time complaining about anomalies and the other half trying to ensure that there are even more. I believe that the simplicity of the tax and the low rate justify it, and I have no compunction at all, as a lover of sport and a lifelong participant, in supporting it.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: I make a plea to the Minister to answer the question which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) put earlier in relation to entrance fees. This is a crucial question. I should like the Minister, if he will, to explain whether it is the Government's intention to increase entrance charges by any means whatever.
I make a special plea on behalf of Rugby League football. This is a part-time and working man's sport. Anyone who attended Wembley to see the Rugby League Cup final last Saturday afternoon

will support what I have to say, that it is a highly skilled game. By the way, the cup was won by St. Helens on this occasion. I hope the Committee will join me in congratulating St. Helens on a fine game, and in congratulations, too, to Leeds, who lost the game but played well.
I have had a look at several of the Rugby League clubs' finances. I understand that selective employment tax is not charged on part-time sport. That is the reason why I ask the Minister to indicate tonight whether it is the Government's intention to implement value added tax on entrance charges and gate charges. This is most important because most of the clubs whose last current financial reports I have examined very carefully, with the exception of a few able to cover themselves with glory, are sportingly fighting on against great odds.
I mention a few of the clubs' financial reports. Hull Kingston Rovers has a debit balance of £2,805; Warrington, a net loss on last year's account of £19,360, and an accumulated deficiency of £20,336; Huddersfield, a debit balance of £1,172; Halifax, an excess of expenditure over incomeof£1,196;Featherstone Rovers—

Mr. Joseph Harper: My club.

Mr. Spriggs: —an excess of expenditure over income of £3,306·24½p; Dewsbury, a net loss of £194; Bradford Northern, a net loss for the year, £3,350; Blackpool Rugby League Club, a profit for last year of £1,439 but with a deficiency carried forward of £4,186. St. Helens, who have been able to cover themselves with glory, and Leigh, our next-door neighbour, have done fairly well, with a profit for the last financial year for St. Helens of £6,312 and for Leigh, one of the top clubs in the country, of £8,562.
I hope that the Financial Secretary appreciates our concern about part-time sport. I am told by the clubs' managements with whom I have discussed the position that they dare not put up the gate prices. They believe they have gone as far as they dare. It is a game which is loved by the people of our northern towns. That is the reason why I appeal to the Financial Secretary, his right hon. Friend, and all his colleagues and the


Government as a whole, to look sympathetically at this sport. If we are not very careful, we may kill it. I want to see quite the opposite. I want to see more encouragement given to this sport, and I should like to see it extended throughout the country. It is an interesting game.
I appeal to the Financial Secretary to put an end to our agony. Let us know whether it is his intention to put 10 per cent. value added tax on the gate money.

[MR. HAROLD GURDEN in the Chair]

Mr. David Mitchell: Today we have had a field day, or one may, perhaps, say a sports day for the Opposition in attacking the Government's proposals for value added tax applied in this field. However, it is not only sport but every single pressure group in the country the Opposition has sought to satisfy by making a case for exemption from VAT. As one casts one's eye down the Notice Paper at the massive number of Amendments and their subject matter one sees that there is scarcely a group in the country for whom exception is not sought.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: . Will the hon. Gentleman cast his mind back two years and tell the Committee how many Amendments of a similar nature he put his name to on the Transport Bill?

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Mitchell: The Transport Bill has no resemblance to the VAT which we are discussing. I am sorry that I wasted the time of the Committee by giving way.
If the Government were to yield on this Amendment and the associated Amendments they could do so only at the expense of increasing the 10 per cent. rate. I am delighted that the rate is as low as 10 per cent. and I am determined to see that everything is done to keep it at 10 per cent. and no higher. There appears to be a concerted plan by the Opposition to insert into the Bill so many exemptions that the 10 per cent. rate will be lost and the Government will have to move to a higher rate.

Mr. James Johnson: Mr. James Johnson (Kingston upon Hull, West) rose—

Mr. Mitchell: I have already given way once, and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) has not spoken. I am sure he will have the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Gurden.
A whole series of hon. Members have referred to the parlous condition of club finances. It was said of Middlesbrough that a £17,000 liability for VAT would fall "as a charge on this club", but this is not true. The charge for VAT does not fall on the club; it falls on those who attend. The hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden), referred to pads, shirts and stumps, as having nothing to do with the finances involved here. I agree with him and accept that. Equally, he must accept that his hon. Friends who have been arguing that the money has to be paid out of the profits of the club are putting forward a fallacious argument. The reality is that the money comes from the public who pay for admission.

Mr. Brian Walden: I agree with the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell), that the charge falls on the final consumer, but has he, as I have, looked at the elasticity of demand and realised what it will mean to many clubs, especially professional soccer clubs, in which I have a particular interest, if they have to add these increases to the increases they will already have to pay because of the rise in prices generally? Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that it will mean a sharp decline in attendance?

Mr. Mitchell: May I give notice, Mr. Gurden, that, having given way so many times during my speech so that the thread of what I am saying is liable to be lost, that is the last time I shall give way.
The hon. Member for All Saints has omitted from his interesting series of deductions a fundamental fact. It is true that the elasticity of demand is such that if these admission prices in isolation were to be increased by 10 per cent. people would go to alternative entertainments, but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that the same VAT charge will apply to every form of entertainment, and people are not going to sit at home and twiddle their thumbs.

Mr. Denis Howell: Mr. Denis Howell rose—

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Member for Small Heath made a speech to which I listened with considerable care. The hon. Member for All Saints missed the important point that it we took gate money in isolation what he says would be true, but since we are taking it on the basis of the coverage of all the alternative activities, it is untrue. One comes down to the question how much it will cost. Is it the sort of money which will drive people away? Let us look at that. I tried to get the Opposition spokesman to tell me how much was involved, and I understand why he was so coy in answering me. He spoke of £5 for a Cup Final, and I agree, although those who travel long distances with great enthusiasm to attend a Cup Final will be asked to pay no more than they pay for a rattle to use at the event.
The reality is that for the vast majority we are dealing with figures which are far lower. We are dealing at the lower end with 5p—according to the hon. Gentleman. What would be the value added tax on that? It would be ½p So we have gone to the two extremes. What is the average run in the middle? It is probably about 30p on which the value added tax would be 3p. I am told that the Birmingham Small Heath Football Club admission charge is 20p, in which case we are talking about value added tax of 2p for two hours' entertainment at a cost per hour of spending a penny. It is one-third the cost of a newspaper. It is one-tenth the cost—

Mr. Denis Howell: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned my constituency team, which ceased to be Small Heath 50 years ago and is now Birmingham City, and is in the First Division. The minimum charge next year will be about double what he tells us, as we certainly must get some money to buy players. Of the difficulties facing Birmingham City and the other First Division clubs, not the least is that if these few extra pence are added to the admission charge that addition will cause catastrophic hold-ups at the turnstiles with people trying to get change at these odd prices of admission which are totally foreign to the sums normally charged at our sports grounds.

Mr. Mitchell: I have never heard a more specious or unsound argument. The hon. Gentleman says in one breath that

clubs cannot cope with these odd sums of money at the turnstiles, yet says in the next breath that next year his club will increase admission charges, which will inevitably involve adding an odd amount to the admission charge.
The point I am making is that this very small value added tax, ranging from ½p to two or three pence, has to be considered against, for example, the cost of going to the ground to watch the game; the very substantial rail charges; the whole train hired by supporters to go to watch their club. The cost incurred by those people are 10 times, and sometimes even 100 times, the amount of value added tax which is to be charged. Therefore, to talk in terms of a value added tax being such as to destroy the gate attendance is a gross exaggeration, and hon. Members who have been peddling this argument must know that it is a gross exaggeration.
The Opposition have to take a very simple fact on board. If they are to press for numerous exemptions, such as this and many others on the Notice Paper, the 10 per cent. rate has either to be increased or it must be applied to a number of things which are now zero-rated. Do the Opposition want to see it added to food, to fuel or to any other essentials which affect the cost of living of the old-age pensioner? What they want is the best of both worlds. [Interruption.]

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I hope hon. Members will allow the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) to make his speech.

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Gurden, because it is very difficult to proceed against heckling from so many seated hon. Members opposite, particularly as I was about to try to support the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), which will astonish him as well as myself. The additional charges which VAT will add to gate money—3p, 4p and occasionally 5p—when considered against the background of the massive reductions in taxation which my right hon. Friend made in the Budget, whereby every taxpayer is 1 a week better off, are very small indeed. When one puts the tax reductions alongside the petty cash which hon. Members opposite are talking about, one begins to get a sense of proportion. Most village


cricket clubs and most amateur clubs will be exempt under the small traders exemption. Even with the 10 per cent. VAT, British football and rugby match admission prices will be amongst the lowest in Europe.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary can give us a little more guidance. The hon. Member for West Ham, North drew attention to the cost of various things like printing programmes, pads and other sports equipment. He suggested that these would incur VAT, which must be taken into account. I assure my hon. Friend that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, "Ah, but you have forgotten that it can be allowed as an input tax and is offset, and therefore you have to take this factor into account. It does not mean a straight 10 per cent. increase in the selling price for tickets."
Surely my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will agree that the Financial Secretary was wrong. Surely there is only an offset to the extent that there has been an additional expenditure and therefore there is no relationship whatever between the pads and the printing and the fact that VAT will now be an addition to the gate money of 10 per cent. If both the hon. Member for West Ham, North, and I, finding ourselves in curious alliance, are wrong, I shall be delighted to hear it.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Patrick Jenkin): I did not hear what my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said, but it would greatly surprise me if he had got the wrong answer. Probably no one in the Committee knows more about VAT than he does. I can only imagine that he possibly misunderstood the point.

Mr. Mitchell: Finally, then, I ask my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to confirm that both the hon. Member for West Ham, North and I are on this occasion correct.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman giving way?

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) has not given way. He has sat down.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Gurden. The hon. Gentleman nodded when I asked if he was giving way. He will agree that he did nod when I asked him.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I judged the hon. Member for Basingstoke to have finished his speech.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Harper: In the very few minutes I need to deploy the case for the Rugby League game, I wish to follow the trend of the argument adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) and speak specifically to Amendment No. 96, of which I am a signatory. It deals with the Rugby League game. I am the only Member of Parliament who is doubly fortunate in that I have two Rugby League teams in my constituency—Castleford and Featherstone, both of which have been at Wembley three times during the last five years.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens on the marvellous display of his team last Saturday. In passing, I would point out that television, which has done a lot to popularise Rugby League football, failed to justify the game on Saturday. It was much better being there than watching it on television. It was a much better game than that which took place at Wembley seven days earlier.
There seems to be a wide gulf between the two sides of the House on this matter. I have heard hon. Members opposite argue that VAT is a fair replacement for SET and purchase tax. That is a phoney argument. I will explain why. Rugby League football is a part-time game, which means that the effect of SET, in reference to players, is nil, because they are all part time. I agree that VAT, in itself, may break even compared with SET and purchase tax in terms of the purchase of sports equipment, but the Rugby League world is worried about the VAT of 10 per cent. on admission charges. It will be a dead loss of 10 per cent. of our receipts. It is tantamount to a reintroduction of entertainment tax, which was removed years ago in order to allow sport to survive.
I want to speak about one of my two teams—the team whose balance sheet


comes readily to hand, namely, Featherstone Rovers Rugby Football Club. I give the team's receipts for the last year, all duly audited and signed as correct. The first team's receipts for the full season of first-class, attractive football, were £5,343. The receipts of the second team amounted to £130. Cup ties brought in £4,821, so that the grant total was £10,294.
As soon as VAT conies in, Featherstone Rovers will have to find £1,030, which compares very un favourably with the less than £100 that the club is now paying in SET. The loss now amounts to £3,306, which will mean that if everything runs true to form the following season the loss will be £4,336, or getting on towards £5,000.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson) is not here. He referred to clubs selling players to get rid of their massive surpluses. I cannot remember the last year in which my club made a surplus. If it were not for the dedication and hard work of the supporter's club and the charitable efforts of many other people, the club could not function. When it is applied, VAT will put some Rugby League clubs out of existence. What amount of tax will the Government get? Perhaps £50 to £100, or not even that. We have never bought players. We would have liked to have bought some players but we have never had any money. In the area in which I live, which saw the creation of Rugby League football, we have to transfer players in order to survive. Even some right hon. and hon. Members opposite will know that what I am saying is correct.
I am pleading for Rugby League football—no more, no less. I may be selfish in that attitude, but if we have to pay value added tax then we go out as a club. It is as simple as that. This is at a time when there may be a shorter working week and more time for leisure. If some relief is not given to Rugby League football and value added tax operates, there is a dismal future for the league. What will happen is that a handful of clubs will be left.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson) is not present. The hon. Gentleman talked a

lot of trash. He just did not know what he was talking about. Neither did his hon. Friend who followed him, who has now bolted. I wish both hon. Members had stayed behind, listened to some reasonable arguments and tried to conserve a sport which in my opinion is the best sport of the lot. It is a sport that needs men to play it.

Mr. Anthony Fell: Rubbish.

Mr. Harper: The hon. Member does not know anything about it.
I hope that when to the debate he will a zero-rating on the admission charges games.

Miss Mary Holt: In my constituency there is a famous football club, Preston North End. It is one of the founder members of the Football Association. The people of Preston have for many years followed with pride and affection the fortunes of that football club.
I must declare an interest. I am both a supporter and a shareholder of Preston, North End.—[Interruption.] It has never paid a dividend. Like most football clubs it is running at a loss. Indeed. 90 per cent. of football clubs in the Football Association are running at a loss.
I wish to voice the disquiet of my constituents about value added tax. If a fresh imposition in the shape of value added tax is added to what they have to bear, association football will disappear from many industrial towns and cities in the north. Preston has had much pleasure from its football team, and it would be a great loss to the town if the club were forced to close down. Representations have been made to me by the chairman of Preston North End. He is well aware of the position of football clubs in the Football League and Football Association. He foresees the closing down of football clubs all over the north if value added tax is put on the impositions that the clubs already have to meet.
There has been a suggestion that the minimum charge for admission should be put up in the forthcoming season. However, Preston North End supporters


say that if this happens and value added tax is added the club will be back where it started. The club will probably have to meet the extra burden of providing for ground safety to comply with the requirements of the Wheatley Report. I should be happy if the Chancellor could give some assurance to the football clubs that their fears are not justified.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Many hon. Members find valued added tax an obnoxious feature of the Government's policy. However its imposition on admission charges for sport would be as punitive as entertainment tax which had to be discarded almost 20 years ago. All major organised sports are united in their opposition to this proposal. Among them are the Cricket Council and the Football Association, the Rugby League and the Rugby Football Union. The two latter have formed what might be described as an unholy alliance. The Government have at least succeeded in uniting two bodies which have been hostile to each other for a very long time. Value added tax would produce more revenue by increasing admission charges.
I thought that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) was a bit confused about the application of purchase tax. I understand that from 21st March this year there is 25 per cent. on cricket bats and footballs, but that on football jerseys there is no purchase tax. However, the latter item will certainly go up in price with the application of a 10 per cent. value added tax.
The addition of value added tax to admission charges will cut attendances at sporting events and produce what I call more television watchers. I should have thought that the Government would make every effort to encourage interest in sport due to the changes which are rapidly taking place in society. New industrial techniques, automation, computerisation, and so on, will inevitably mean a shorter working week in industry with more time for leisure. Surely financial obstacles should not be put in the way of this healthy development.
The Government should have learned their lesson from the debâcle which took place over entertainment tax. First it was withdrawn from amateur sport and eventually from professional sport. If sporting organisations contribute more to

the Exchequer there will be less money available for the provision of amenities at the grounds. We know only too well that more and better seating arrangements are required, that terraces need to be improved, and that better refreshment facilities ought to be made available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) referred to the vital safety factor. The Wheatley Report recently called attention to this important aspect. It is certainly not a moment too soon, recalling that 18 months ago we had a most tragic incident in Glasgow.
The Government appointed Dr. Roger Bannister to head the Sports Council. I understand that he has declared himself quite firmly opposed to value added tax. The Government should take note of what their appointed representative says. I notice that in a report out today, which is referred to in the Evening Standard, Dr. Bannister says that British sport needs a £350 million transfusion. Yet all the Exchequer seems to be doing is to try to extract even more revenue out of sport.
I am particularly interested in this matter from the regional aspect of sport in Wales. The Welsh Football Association has made every effort to plough back money into local soccer clubs in Wales. Soccer in Wales faces competition not only from television but also from the fact that Rugby Union has a strong following. Wales has four clubs in the English League, and it can honestly be said that they are all suffering indifferent fortunes. Not one can remotely be described at wealthy.
Perhaps I may here declare a slight constituency interest. Newport County has for a long time had a difficult job to survive, but towards the end of the season there was a revival of its fortunes which took it nearly to the middle of the League. Much credit is due to the directors of the club and to its steadfast supporters, even though they are only small in number. Newport County's problem throughout has been essentially financial, and this increased burden could be the straw that broke the camel's back. The imposition of this tax will be a tragedy for soccer in South Wales.
9.0 p.m.
At the English League's annual meeting on 2nd June a proposal is to be made by


the management committee to increase the minimum attendance fee from 30p to 40p. That in itself will not help to increase attendances. I understand that the English League distributes its 4 per cent. net match takings evenly, but that there is a proposal from Crystal Palace that greater efforts should be made during this financial year to help the more struggling clubs. The point that I am trying to make is that it would be the height of folly for the Government to make things even more difficult for teams such as Newport County which are struggling to maintain themselves, and have been doing so for some time.
I now turn to the other game in Wales which is a focal point there, and that is Rugby Union. It is thriving, but gates are still low. It is very much an amateur game, and there tends to be great reliance on voluntary workers, with the result that little SET is paid.
I should perhaps declare another small interest, because in Newport Athletic Club we have one of the finest clubs of its kind in the country. Rugby is undoubtedly the most famous sport, the one that rakes in the most money, but this famous athletic club also caters for cricket, hockey, netball, bowls, tennis, squash and many other games. It is administered exclusively by voluntary effort. Are these people to be turned into Government tax collectors? Surely an organisation such as Newport Athletic Club, which is such a power for good in the community, should not be taxed in this way?
In reply to two Questions the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last Thursday that he had received many representations from both soccer and rugby interests opposed to the imposition of VAT. Nevertheless, the Chancellor indicated that he proposed no form of relief for admission to sporting events, and I find that difficult to understand. The only concession that he is prepared to make is that clubs whose turnover in taxable goods and services does not exceed £5,000 will be exempt from tax. It may seem fair on the surface to tax the giants and let the tiddlers go free, but this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem.
The Welsh Rugby Union stages several internationals at Cardiff each season

before capacity crowds, but any surplus of income is distributed among the junior and struggling clubs, so nurturing the grass roots of the sport. These matches are essentially all-ticket affairs. Tickets are allocated to affiliated clubs which distribute them to their members. When events like this, exclusively for members, take place, is it necessary for VAT to be levied? There seems to be a loophole here of which the Chancellor might care to take advantage.
I assure the Committee that this whole issue is being taken extremely seriously in Wales. A special committee of the Welsh Sports Council under the chairmanship of Mr. Kenneth Harris, treasurer of the Welsh Rugby Union, has been established to examine and make representations on this problem. In view of the representations that have already been made to the Chancellor, I urge him to think about the whole matter again.

Captain Walter Elliot: I came to this debate prepared to accuse hon. Gentlemen opposite of playing party politics with sport. I confess that they have not done that.
It is clear that the various Amendments in this group have been supported by them entirely on the basis of sentiment. I make no complaint about that, especially as I am arguing in a similar vein. They want their own clubs or sports freed from VAT, while being prepared to let all the others have the tax levied on them.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) was not as logical as he usually is. He seemed surprised when I intervened on the question of county cricket, yet he agreed with me that attendances at county grounds were low, but not for financial reasons. He immediately went on to stress how big attendances were at the Gillette Cup and similar attractions. He proved my point that low attendances at county grounds have nothing to do with the cost of admission. I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) put forward the Welsh Rugby Union as a justification for tax concessions. He said that admission to Cardiff Arms Park was by ticket only. He must be aware that if that were not the case, the whole ground would be chock-a-block with spectators because people would come from far and wide


to see their heroes in red jerseys on the field. The same applies to the Gillette Cup and other major attractions. Welshmen will pay anything to get into Cardiff Arms Park, and an extra 2p or 3p on the price of a ticket would not stop them going there.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: While accepting that the Gillette Cup and similar attractions are extremely remunerative, may I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he is saying that county cricket clubs should have an additional burden of VAT imposed on them because there is something lacking in the sport they offer?

Captain Elliot: I shall not go into that. I do not want to take up too much time. All I am saying is that the decline in attendances at the county grounds has nothing to do with the price of admission, or very little.
The Amendments cover amateur sport as well. Many amateur clubs rely on their gates to a small extent and they use the small sums they receive. The Opposition seem to he doing an astonishing injustice to sportsmen and followers. These people are a robust crowd. Generally, they do not suffer the disabilities of the less fortunate. They play and watch games for enjoyment. They are the last people in the world who would begrudge a contribution to the nation's finances. Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but I shall continue my argument.
Naturally we want to encourage outdoor sports and activities of every sort. This is helped a great deal by the supporters, particularly in some sports. But for amateur sport, the decision whether or not VAT is imposed will make not the slightest difference. People will play and their supporters will watch and pay the small difference. If they are aware of the tax—they will probably not be—they will enjoy their chosen sport even more in the knowledge that they are contributing to the nation's finances, as long as we do not, here or anywhere else, go into all the sob stuff about their having to pay an extra 2p or 3p, which is absolutely ludicrous.

Mr. James Hamilton: Regarding amateur sport, I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman totally and do not depart from what he has said. But he

must recognise the arguments put forward from the Opposition benches. The Football Association has now decided that it must increase charges not only because of VAT but because most of the clubs cannot survive at present. Our argument is that those of us who are not capable of participating in sports as amateurs and who want to watch professional football, for example, which is my enjoyment, will be denied that because many clubs will not be able to operate.

Captain Elliot: I was about to turn briefly to professional sport. I do not want to go into all the finances. There may be something in what the hon. Gentleman said. I have made only the general proposition that if the clubs play the game attractively, people will go to watch. I was reading only the other day about the rewards given to the Leeds United players. I shall not embarrass hon. Members opposite by repeating them, but they were very considerable. People will go to watch attractive snort, whatever the sport or wherever it is played.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to a report of financial rewards given to the Leeds players. Would he care to compare those with the financial rewards of players in teams such as Hartlepool and others seeking re-election for the Fourth Division?

Captain Elliot: Obviously the top men will be paid very much more, but I do not see why those who do not play very well should reap large rewards. However, professional sport can be fairly asked to contribute. We shall hear from my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary in due course exactly how much the spectator will have to contribute for his seat at a game, but I do not believe that it will be very much.
9.15 p.m.
The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper), who made a moving appeal for Rugby League, pointed out what a good game it was at Wembley—I with him—and that the stadium was full. At that match there were 100,000 people, tens of thousands of whom came from the north. Is it suggested seriously that such people will object to a few pence on the price of the ticket? Such supporters of sport will not mind incurring


such expense in following and supporting their favourite sport. It will be practically painless and will be a legitimate source of revenue.
My only reason for speaking in this debate is that I have played most games and have probably spent far too much time playing them. I am prepared to argue with my friends why they should accept this small burden. I am prepared to say to spectators who enjoy their sport and to sportsmen who enjoy their exercise that they will do so to an increased extent in the knowledge that not only will they be benefiting themselves but they will also be helping the country and helping others who are, perhaps, not in such a fortunate state of health.
I ask hon. Members opposite to drop these misguided Amendments. T say "misguided" deliberately, because I accept that hon. Gentlemen wish to encourage sport and sportsmen, but it would be misguided to free a section of the population which is well able to shoulder this small burden.

Mr. Frank McElhone: It is wholly appropriate that Amendment No. 120 should have been selected, not because it stands in my name but because it refers specifically to Scottish football. My Amendment was not tabled for any sentimental reason. I take the point made by the hon. Lady the Member for Preston, North (Miss Holt), who mentioned an industrial aspect in regard to this debate about football clubs. Football originated in Scotland, and other countries have attempted to copy us with varying degrees of success.

Mr. James Hamilton: My hon. Friend might usefully remind the Committee also that it was a Scottish club which was the first to win the European Cup.

Mr. McElhone: That is a very relevant point, not least because the team was Glasgow Celtic, which has been mentioned so often tonight.
The very high transfer fees are only paper transactions. Often the size of the fee involved in no way reflects the finances of the club or clubs involved. Many football clubs depend upon their development clubs, which are run by the supporters' associations, for their sur-

vival. The extra burden that will fall on the clubs, certainly in Scotland——

Mr. Loughlin: And England!

Mr. McElhone: I am restricting my remarks to Scotland—

Mr. Charles R. Morris: May I draw the hon. Member's attention to the impact of the value added tax on Manchester United Football Club? The burden will be in excess of £50,000. Manchester United pays a mere £2,400 in selective employment tax, so that value added tax will add £48,000 to their financial difficulties.

Mr. McElhone: I fully accept what my hon. Friend said about Manchester United. It has been said that we might be putting down Amendments for sentimental reasons but that does not take account of the fact that practically every club in Scotland will be involved in the very heavy expense of conforming to new safety requirements.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) leads us in matters of sport in a very active manner. I pay tribute to his chairmanship of the sports committee. He has brought these questions before us from time to time. I believe that the tax will cripple many of the smaller clubs. If the costs of the Wheatley proposals are added to the cost of VAT, the increased burden will sound the death knell for many of the smaller clubs.
Football is a way of life in Scotland, perhaps different from any other part of the country. We do not follow the Philistine sports of Rugby League, cricket and the other sports mentioned tonight. In Scotland we have a staple diet of football at the senior, junior and certainly at the amateur levels. This has an effect on Scotland's industrial situation. We are faced with a very difficult situation which gets worse every time there is a Tory Government. The Government are in the process of creating new regional policies, and this means attracting industry to areas such as Glasgow and the remote parts of Scotland. The City of Glasgow has an overspill housing scheme which means some families having to move 60 miles away. It is no exaggeration to say that football has a bearing on these matters because it is the mainstay interest of many of the fathers, certainly many of the children—

Mr. James Hamilton: And the mothers?

Mr. McElhone: Yes, and the mothers. My hon. Friend refers to the mothers and no doubt his wife, like mine, enjoys watching Celtic play.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member could persuade his hon. Friends to cut down on their good-natured interruptions we should get on faster.

Mr. McElhone: They would take advice from the Chair more quickly than they would take it from me.
I come to the Highland Football League. The previous Government created the Highlands and Islands Board with the intention of attracting industry to the area. Football plays a prominent part in the social life of that area. Anyone who has watched some of the teams in the Highlands knows that they are vigorous teams, anxious to keep football as part of the way of life. Rising costs have reduced the gates and this tax will sound the death knell for many of these clubs.
English and Welsh Members do not appreciate the value of football to Scotland. If this tax is imposed at the rate of 10 per cent. with the possibility of rising to 20 per cent. it will have a serious effect, and not just on the senior Scottish clubs. Mr. Desmond White of Celtic has been mentioned already. I discussed the position with him, and he is very anxious about the B Division clubs and the junior clubs. Celtic and Rangers will survive as will Liverpool and Everton and perhaps Arsenal. I am talking about the junior clubs which are the bedrock of football and which supply players for most of the major teams. They are part of the social life of Scotland and they add to the quality of life there. I hope that the Treasury will have second thoughts about the application of this tax.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Mr. Concannon: I want to be brief—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and I will be all the more brief if some of my colleagues will cut out the cheering. The Amendment dealing with rugby football to which I added my name has already been dealt adequately with by my colleagues. I have played most sports,

including cricket and football, and have represented my county at basketball. I am possibly the only Member of Parliament who at one time wanted to be 7 feet tall and coloured so that he could play for the Harlem Globetrotters. We have great difficulty in selling this game here. Once a year the Harlem Globetrotters are brought to this country. Incidentally, they are at Wembley Pool this week. It is becoming increasingly difficult to bring this team over to show the world's greatest basketball players in action, and this tax will make it even more difficult. This tax covers the minor sports as well as the major sports.
I represent a constituency in Nottinghamshire where the football clubs, with the exception of that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Dunnett), Notts County, have been relegated, one from the First Division, and my own team, Mansfield, from the Third Division to the Fourth Division. It is all right for my hon. Friends who represent Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal and such First Division teams to say that this will amount only to a cut of 5,000 in the gate. Possibly the big teams can afford to lose 5,000. But that is Mansfield Town's gate. It is the Mansfield Towns which keep football going and which make the Manchester Uniteds, Liverpools and Leeds Uniteds.
9.30 p.m.
I have had representations from the secretary of my local club. He signs himself as the secretary, but I know that he and secretaries of similar clubs do just about everything else in the club in order to save money. In 1971, my local club. Mansfield Town, made a profit of £61,600. It has been said that Middlesbrough made a loss of over £80,000 in the same year. The point that we must remember about football finances is that the money stays in the game, or it has done up to now. Middlesbrough lost over £80,000 and Mansfield made a profit of over £61,000 because we sold our best young player to Middlesbrough for about that sum. The gate receipts of Mansfield Town for the whole of that year were £45,500.
What the secretary of Mansfield Town is frightened of is that the club will be priced out of business. If that happens to Mansfield Town and other clubs, it


will have a disastrous effect on football. Football in Mansfield is as integral as mayor-making; it is part and parcel of the town. We have discussed in the local council chamber whether it would be possible to help the team from the rates, but we were denied the opportunity because the Minister said that this would be a disallowed charge. In order to make the ground more comfortable, the club had to buy a second-hand stand flint Kempton Park racecourse. It was dragged up the motorway in pieces and re-erected at Mansfield.
The small clubs are afraid of the value added tax. They fear that this extra burden might have a disastrous effect not only on the Football League, but on cricket and many other sports. I add my voice to those of my colleagues in hoping that football clubs and sport in general will be zero-rated.

Mr. Loughlin: I have no team like Manchester United or Leeds United in my constituency, or a team like the Leeds team which lost to St. Helens on Saturday. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) talked about Featherstone Rovers—a very third-rate team compared with Hunslet.
I am faced with an entirely different situation. I wish to speak not about a First Division football club but about a series of football clubs which do not have such wealth. I may amuse the Committee when I say that I am vice-president of Coleford United, Redbrook Rovers and Harrow Mill football clubs. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Never heard of them."] Of course not, but we produced in our area young Steven Bowsley for Derby County. We have produced other youngsters for the big national clubs.
What worries me—and perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will give me some guidance on this—is that VAT may apply to gate receipts of the amateur football clubs not only in my constituency but throughout the country. What I want to know is whether VAT will apply to the gate receipts of the clubs of villages which have no professional football clubs and which are remote from the main industrial towns which do have them. Does the Government's proposal mean that VAT will apply to those village clubs? If it does, it almost spells the

death knell of a great number of football clubs throught the country.
I will pause and wait for the conclusion of that conference between the Financial Secretary and the Parliamentary Private Secretary. I want to know the answer to this question because it is extremely important in areas of the kind of which I am speaking, where there are amateur clubs which perform an essential function in the life of the community. I want to know whether they are to have value added tax imposed on their gate receipts.
The second point I want to make is in relation to cricket clubs. As I understand it, from representations which have been made to me by Gloucestershire County Cricket Club, most county cricket clubs are extremely concerned about the affect of value added tax on their very existence. I resigned from Gloucestershire Cricket Club over apartheid, but, nevertheless, I recognise that there are a considerable number of people, county by county, who are concerned about the existence of county cricket clubs. Is the Financial Secretary prepared to say that value added tax will be imposed on county cricket clubs even though it may mean that many of the county cricket clubs will go out of existence?
These are the two points with which I want the Financial Secretary to deal: one, the effect of VAT on amateur football clubs in areas such as my own where such clubs perform a very useful function in the community; secondly, the effect on county cricket clubs. My information is that the effect will be diastrous. Can the Financial Secretary give us some assurance on these points tonight? If, under the present proposals, the points I have put are accurate, will the Financial Secretary agree that some variation in the tax, or even elimination of the tax, will be introduced to see that the adverse effect on both these types of sporting clubs is nullified?

Mr. Michael McGuire: I wish to speak briefly to Amendment No. 96 which concerns the Rugby League clubs. Unlike most other hon. Members who have spoken, I have no constituency interest to declare as there is no Rugby League club in any of the seven towns which make up the constituency of Ince. The vast majority of my constituents support


the Wigan Rugby League Football Club, some will support Leigh and some will probably support the team which I support, the Saints—the St. Helens Rugby League Club who did the right thing on Saturday and beat Leeds. It was a good match which most people enjoyed—I certainly did. It is sometimes forgotten that Rugby League is a game played by both amateurs and professionals. The amateur Rugby League is getting a poor deal. Quite a lot of money has been given to other sports, but the amateur Rugby League is not receiving as much as it should, and I ask the Minister responsible for sport to see what he can do to help it.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) read out a long list of clubs and gave details of their financial positions. Almost all Rugby League clubs make a loss. If the Rugby League clubs thought that the gates could stand the extra few "coppers" they would increase the admission charges. They all need the money, and the only reason they do not increase the charges is the law of diminishing returns. Fewer and fewer people would come to watch the game because of the rival attractions of the television. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) is a Rugby Union follower and I have often heard him speak of the prowess and skill of the Welsh Rugby Union. He was right in saying that one effect of this tax will be to make more and more television addicts and fewer and fewer people will pay to watch the games.
Rugby League is played in an area which does not have many of the good things of life apart from the qualities of the people who live there, and sometimes the scenery. It is played in the oldest industrial areas of the country—Lancashire and Yorkshire. It was born out of honesty. Honest men said that if the players could play the game well enough they would pay them professionally, and that is how the great split came about in 1895. It is part of the scenery and part of the way of life in Lancashire and Yorkshire, but only in certain parts of those counties—in South-West Lancashire, part of East Lancashire, Rochdale and Oldham, the southern part of Cumberland, Whitehaven and Workington, and the West Riding, and Hull is a stronghold. The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Capt. W.

Elliot) spoke of the crowd of 90,000 at Wembley on Saturday and the thousands who cannot be accommodated who want to get in to Welsh Rugby Union games. That does not prove that the clubs are thriving—they are not. These games are great social events.
I ask the Financial Secretary to accept the Amendment, which will be of so much benefit. The Government are spending millions of pounds on encouraging people to participate in sport but by this proposal some Rugby League clubs in the United Kingdom will be destroyed and our rich heritage will be lost.
I know very well that teams like Manchester United and Celtic will survive but, in a way, their survival depends on the healthy grassroots of sport. Clubs like that do not want to play each other week in and week out; they want a nation-wide game. The tax will bring a small return for the Government—it may even be a diminishing return. As I have said, if these clubs felt that admission could stand an extra bob or two or an extra copper or two they would have put their charges up. The Rugby League clubs certainly would have done because about 90 per cent. of them are already in financial difficulties. So I ask the Government to withdraw their proposals so far as they affect Rugby League.

9.45 p.m.

Miss Joan Hall: I am glad to be called after the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) and to be able to talk in particular about the Rugby League clubs. We have one such club in Keighley. These clubs may not be in the top class but those in them are good sportsmen. They draw good crowds on Saturdays and Sundays, and supply a very valuable asset to the life of the community. That is something we tend to forget. If a club does not appear on television, it tends to be forgotten. Only a few clubs appear on television, but the majority of them which do not really are the backbone of Rugby League.
Those of us who watch Rugby League matches can say that it is not always the antics on the field that attract us. I myself find it a very interesting occupation to watch the crowds who attend. This sport appeals to both men and women, and to all ages. In an age when so many people are prepared to do nothing but


complain that nothing is laid on for them, and perhaps spend their time in vandalism and harming the community, those aspects of our life that help the community should have every assistance.
In that connection I think particularly of sport, and of Rugby League football in particular. Those south of Bawtry do not understand the interest of the game—I am learning. It is not just a question of attending the match and seeing what happens on the field. As in everything else today, people have more time and more money, and want more than just the game. They seek the companionship which it brings, which they find in the various activities before the game starts, during the break in the middle of the game, and afterwards, and particularly in the bars and tearooms. They want the general conviviality.
It costs money, particularly today when standards are rising, to get pleasant surroundings for such conviviality. In the pubs we have got rid of the spit and sawdust conditions—they are now warm, happy places—and the same applies to the bars of our Rugby League clubs. As elsewhere, those attending matches also want places where they can enjoy themselves in a civilised atmosphere. The money needed for all this has to come from the gate receipts. Anything, therefore, that harms the future of our clubs is detrimental to the social life and to the good of the country.
As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, a sportsman of considerable renown, is interested in sport and has played a very valued part in our sporting life and appreciates the problems involved, I hope that he will, in particular, view with favour Amendment No. 96.

Mr. Alan Fitch: I appeal to the Chancellor to withdraw value added tax from sport because it will be detrimental to all types of sporting organisations. I represent the constituency of Wigan and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) said, many of his constituents and a great many of mine follow the fortunes of Wigan Rugby League Club. I do not need to sing its praises because most hon. Members already know something about this very famous club. Happily, its finances are pretty good, so I do not plead my case

only on financial grounds. But even clubs such as Wigan, St. Helens and Leeds, whose finances are in a reasonably good condition, are suffering from a drop in attendances and the tax will accelerate that process.
The hon. Lady the Member for Keighley (Miss Joan Hall) mentioned the growth of vandalism and hooliganism. I am glad to say that both vandalism and hooliganism, and everything associated with such behaviour, is almost unknown in Rugby League circles, both on the ground and off the ground among the spectators. But it would not be true to say that that is so generally among the community at large. Unfortunately, vandalism and hooliganism and petty crime are increasing. I believe that one of the ways to deal with the situation is to encourage more and more people to take part in sporting activities. I regret very much, therefore, any tax likely to retard such encouragement. I appeal to the Chancellor to think again.

Mr. James Johnson: This is a most important debate. It has taken a significant turn in the last half hour or so. It is one of the most human debates in which I have ever taken part. We are talking about people we know in our pubs, whether in Keighley, or Hull, or Ince, or Wigan or anywhere else. No hon. Member who has spoken will have been closer to his constituents than in this debate. Many of my hon. Friends from Yorkshire and Lancashire, and also the hon. Member for Keighley (Miss Joan Hall), have spoken about the importance of Rugby League in the North of England. I have two Rugby League clubs in Hull, one in West Hull and the other in East Hull. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) spoke of the need to nurture League football in Glasgow, and other hon. Members have referred to soccer as being a way of life. I played for 20 years, and have altogether spent 40 years in the game. But I wish that all games had as much discipline, as much decency and, if I may say so, as much deportment on the field as Rugby League. Sometimes I am ashamed, as an old soccer supporter, when I see many of my people—some of them I know—tugging shirts, checking the referee, and behaving like adolescents, even like school kids, on the field, vet being paid £100 a week or more, while


men from the docks and the mines of Yorkshire and Lancashire behave themselves so well on the field.
It is important in the North to keen a game like this going. In our debate on the tax proposed on lifeboats, I, as Member for a deep-sea-fishing constituency, appealed to the Minister of State, because as Member for St. Ives, he has more lifeboats in his constituency than there are in any other constituency—and I succeeded.
I appeal to another Minister who, like myself, has been an athlete. He, like the Minister of State, Treasury, should listen to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee talking about the games they love. Of all people, he is the executioner. In fact, he is worse than that, with his 10 per cent. tax axe upon clubs, and detailed figures have been given by hon. Members.
What is the matter with the Government? My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) spoke of what lie termed the Minister's misunderstanding of sport such as football, athletics, badminton and basketball. There is no misunderstanding, only disease. Those whom the gods love die young, but those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.
The people on the benches opposite who play games are mad when they talk about taxing clubs for which they once played. I listened to a former noted footballer—the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot)—who has played on ten occasions at Twickenham. He showed a paternalistic attitude towards us. He said that football clubs would be delighted to give this money in taxation to his Government. Let him go into any public house in Hull or Wigan and see whether they are delighted to give this money. What nonsense! I have letters from Mr. Fallow-field, Secretary of the Rugby League and from Hull. This tax will add 10 per cent., if not more, to the admission charges.
It is no good saying one thing and thinking another. Such an addition will mean a lot to people earning only £20, or even as little as £15 a week. At the end of the day, if admission charges are raised fewer people will attend. That is what happened in transport when bus fares were raised. People will not go to

see the match; they will watch it on television.
The Ministers say that no one is against sport. They say that they all love it. It is like sin; no one is against it. But we all want to expand sport. How will the Government expand it in this way? We have had figures from the Front Bench and from back bench Members about the impact of the tax on sport. The Government are chiselling and chipping away the attendances at matches.
Hull City—our local soccer club—lost just under £60,000 last year. Their gate receipts are just over £200,000, which means that VAT must add another £20,000 to their deficit of £60,000. The two Rugby League sides in Hull are composed of dockers, miners and other manual workers. They play this manly game of Rugby League. It means very much to them as a way of life. Hull Rugby League Club lost over £4,000 in 1967–68. What did they do? They did not start bingo or sweepstakes and the women did not run tea parties. They made extra money by allowing a speedway team to construct a track round the perimeter of their ground, the Boulevard. But who wants to have a speedway track running round a football pitch? My constituents complain about the noise. But some people in Rugby League clubs are forced to invite the speedway, so that they can make a marginal profit.
Hull Kingston Rovers, like Hull Rugby League Football Club, have been to Wembley, just as have St. Helens and Leeds, yet in 1970–71 even Hull Kingston Rovers lost almost £5,000. Last year the total receipts amounted to £25,000, paid by under £100,000 spectators, of which £2,500 will now be taken by VAT. I can only say in the saddest tones I can muster that I wonder how men who have played games can apply an axe of this nature to the games they love so well.
My advice to the Government, as it was to the Treasury Minister last week about lifeboats, is to think again. If they could take off the tax on lifeboats, they can take off a tax on those who watch sport. I advise them to do so.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Higgins: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene at this stage. Certainly a great


many points of interest have been made by hon. Members of both sides. I should like to express my thanks to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) for his kind remarks about my athletic past. I think that would be the best way of expressing it. I could not help reflecting that there was probably some difference between our two respective sports. The hon. Gentleman felt it appropriate to blow his whistle at about 45 minutes. I shall seek, as most athletes and I think Ministers do, to cover the ground in the shortest possible time. However, having raised those expectations, I must point out that I have slowed down over the years. I cannot promise to do it in 47 seconds or thereabouts.
I will begin by taking up some of the points which I was seeking to make in interventions in the hon. Gentleman's speech. Although it is not easy to explain or to probe these matters in interventions, the hon. Gentleman seemed to be basing his remarks on a misconception which arose from the idea that the tax was simply a flat 10 per cent. rate on turnover. It is a tax which ultimately falls on consumption. None the less, in computing the tax, as is clear from both the Green Paper and the White Paper, one charges the output tax, but one is allowed to deduct from it the input tax on any particular items which may have arisen.
I was out of the Chamber for only a few minutes in the course of the entire debate. However, I understand that the hon. Member for West Ham. North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) intervened on the matter of programmes. I should make the position clear on that matter. If the programme is produced by the taxable person concerned, the particular sporting club. the amount which is charged for it will appear as output tax, but the amount paid in input tax would probably be deductible. Taking all the various operations which a particular club is engaged in, one needs to total the amount of the output tax which will be at 10 per cent., but one will be able to deduct the input tax on the various items which make up the entire operation. That is the case with transfer fees where the normal operation of the VAT credit mechanism will pass forward in this as

in many other cases with which we have been dealing.

Mr. Dalyell: Mr. Dalyell rose—

Mr. Higgins: s: I have spelt it out at some length. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who has been present throughout all our debates, will be familiar with this situation. I think it is quite clear to those hon. Members who have been here over the last three or four days of our debates.

Mr. Dalyell: Mr. Dalyell rose—

Mr. Higgins: I turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Small Heath. First, he emphasised at some length that in his view and that of some of those persons who have written to him this is a reintroduction of the entertainment tax. I will make two points on that matter. The first I have made on a number of previous occasions in the debates we have had on the Finance Bill this year. Value added tax is by its nature a comprehensive tax. We are not reintroducing an entertainment tax which discriminates against a particular form of consumption, namely, expenditure on entertainment.
It is a broadly based tax and there is not a case in this instance, as in some others, for giving particular preferential treatment and excluding it from the broad base of the tax. One of the letters quoted by the hon. Gentleman said this would take us back to where we were with entertainments tax. As I understand it, the level of entertainments tax was a good deal higher than the kind of figure about which we are talking and it was not possible to deduct the input tax paid by the trader at earlier stages.
It is important—and this point has been running through much of our debate this evening—to distinguish between the tax on participating sports and the tax on what the Americans call spectator sports.
In this connection perhaps I might take up the point which the hon. Gentleman made about my sport, athletics. The hon. Gentleman referred to the burden which would be likely to fall on athletics and he said that on last year's figures there would be a tax due of £900. I want to emphasise the point which I sought to make in my first intervention


in his speech, which is that this Government have substantially reduced the tax on sports equipment. We reduced the tax from 36⅔ per cent. to 30 per cent. in July, 1971, and to 25 per cent, in this year's Budget, which is the equivalent of 16⅔ per cent. of VAT, which is a retail sales tax as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) said. That being so, we have significantly reduced by a number of stages the level of tax which is applied to sports equipment. That is significant.

Mr. Denis Howell: The hon. Gentleman is on a false point both on his input argument and on his argument about purchase tax on equipment, because the governing bodies of both swimming and boxing do not buy any equipment and therefore do not pay purchase tax. They do not have that sum to offset. For swimming, the purchase tax is paid by the individual swimmer who buys his swimming trunks. The same is true of athletics. The sum of 900 is purely gate money. The Minister ought to know that the governing body of athletics buys no equipment and pays no purchase tax, and therefore has nothing to offset.

Sir G. Nabarro: I wonder whether, in reply to that intervention, my hon. Friend would care to make the point that swimming depends on swimming pools, and that every swimming pool attracts large sums of SET, which is being abolished?

Mr. Higgins: I think that one would need to look at the position of individual sports. It is the case that in some instances there will be a substantial amount of input tax to deduct, while in others the sum will not be significant. The point that I am seeking to make—and it is important—is that the Government's proposals for the reform of indirect taxation must be looked at as a whole. We are introducing VAT, and abolishing purchase tax and SET.
The point made a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South is important. The fact that we are reducing the tax on sports equipment is also something which one would need to take into account in evaluating the overall effect of the proposals in the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman cares to do the arithmetic—I did a few

calculations myself on the basis of my own experience of buying athletic shoes, and so on—allowing for the reductions in purchase tax to which I have referred and comparing the two systems of taxation—one under his Government, and one as it will be under VAT—he will find that the sums of money involved for the sport as a whole, participants as well as governing body, will set up a balance sheet which is not at all unfavourable.
I do not for one moment deny—indeed, this is apparent—that the imposition of VAT will fall on a number of sporting bodies and clubs. This is because VAT, although computed in the way I have described, is a tax on final consumption, and it seems to the Government right that those who attend sporting events and pay for their admission charges should be included in the scope of VAT.
I say that because this is a comprehensive tax. For example, the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints said that it was a tax on entertainment. Another hon. Member said that we were taxing a social activity. This is all true. If, however, we are to have a broadly based tax at a low level, which is what we propose, it is important not to introduce anomalies, which means that the tax should be as broadly based as possible.
It has been suggested that the Government are not acting in a way consistent with the importance they attach to sport. It is important in this context to consider not only the question of the imposition of a broadly based tax but also the assistance which the Government give more generally to sport. This aspect arose in our debate the other night on the theatre, when it was suggested that it was illogical on the one hand to tax something and on the other to give Government assistance to it. I shall come to this subject later.
It is worth while emphasising what the Minister responsible for sport pointed out on 15th July last when he said that the Government had done a great deal to help sport. The Sports Council grant has been virtually doubled. We are freeing local authorities to use their locally determined schemes for investment in local sport, all proving that the Government are making a major contribution in this sphere. There has also been help in terms of infrastructure aid. These are important incentives for the development of sport.
It is vital for the Committee to remember the importance of this tax falling on a broad base, and the reason is straight forward. If one seeks to give relief both by direct Government help and by discrimination within the tax system, one creates a great many anomalies. One must work in a flexible way and the system of grants enables us to operate in a way which directs help to where it is most required.
There is a basic difference of view here, but there is no illogicality in what the Government are doing. By including the item within a broad base for tax purposes and giving help on a massive scale to the sports concerned—

Mr. Denis Howell: Mr. Denis Howell rose—

Mr. Higgins: I trust that the hon. Gentlemen will allow me to proceed for a short while without interruption.

Mr. Denis Howell: I must point out two aspects to the hon. Gentleman before he continues. We cannot argue the whole question of the finance of sporting activities at this stage. While it is true that an increased grant will be available, whereas the expenditure of the Sports Council in terms of administering the grant was previously met by the Council it must now be met out of the grant, which means that the net increase is not as great as the hon. Gentleman would have us believe. Although the Minister talks of help to sports clubs, it is a matter of considerable regret that for the first time voluntary sports clubs are not to receive Government grants.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Higgins: There is no question that the Government cannot stand on their record, compared with the performance when the hon. Member for Small Heath occupied the position which my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport now occupies.
But I want to express a view on the various points raised about attendances. One needs to look at other factors besides taxation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson) said. In looking at the decline which has been taking place very often in attendances, undoubtedly the effect of television has been very considerable. Certainly attendances at White City are

not at the level at which they were perhaps 15 or 20 years ago. The same is true for a great many other sports.

[Mrs. JOYCE BUTLER in the Chair]

When one considers the impact of this tax on attendances at sports meetings, one must also look at the other measures we have taken in the Budget. For example, the fact that those paying income tax will be £1 a week better Off—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is therefore likely that we shall see more money spent on attendances. One also needs to look at the fact that the tax is not regressive. That being so, less tax will be charged on certain essential items—food, for example and—therefore people will have a very considerable amount as a result of that which may be redistributed in this direction. But it would be a mistake in my view to distort the working of tax in such a way as to create a great many anomalies. It is right and proper that a tax at the level we have proposed should fall on this range as it falls on a broad range of other items.

Mr. Denis Healey: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) will be dealing with the bulk of the hon. Gentleman's argument shortly. But is the hon. Gentleman saying that he is still taking credit for this 1 that the Chancellor is said to have given away, when there was a 12 per cent. rise in food prices last year, largely created by deliberate policy actions of the Government, when we are expecting this year an 11 per cent. rise in rates, a possible doubling of council house rents and a whole range of new imposts as a direct result of government policy? On top of that, is the hon. Gentleman proposing to get increased charges for sports out of the same pound note?

Mr. Higgins: That was not a very illuminating intervention because one needs also to take into account the fact that the VAT is not regressive. Therefore, it is right that we should include this in the scope of the tax sand it is an imposition which can be carried by the sports concerned.
One final point, not even referred to by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath, though his hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes)


referred to it, as did the hon. Member for Gloucester—

Mr. Loughlin: Gloucestershire, West.

Mr. Higgins: That was in regard to the position of the small trader relief. Many sporting clubs will fall within the scope of the relief my right hon. Friend proposes should be given to those with a taxable income of less than £5,000. This will give relief for many of the smaller clubs which will, consequently, not be subject to VAT.
If one takes the overall effect of our proposals, I have no doubt that it is right to reject the Amendments. It is right that such a tax, which is designed to cover a wide range of consumer expenditure, as was pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot), my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) and others, should be a comprehensive tax. If it is not, we shall find that it is necessary to raise the standard rate. On that basis, I invite the Committee to reject the Amendments.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Minister has given a very disappointing reply. I join those of my hon. Friends who have supported soccer, Rugby League, cricket and other sports. Everyone who has spoken so far has been asked to support his own club. I have been asked by Bobby Moore to say that all the England footballers are annoyed with the Government. I said to Bobby Moore, "You put them in. You will have to get them out". However, it was not the soccer supporters who put the Government in.
I speak on this matter with a clear conscience. Some of my hon. Friends have been offside during this game, because many of those who have opposed the VAT voted for entry into the European Economic Community. We all know that the tax is tied up with the question of the Common Market. The Minister has proclaimed loudly that the tax will be at a nominal 10 per cent. He and I know that all the EEC countries, with the exception of Italy, operate this tax on all forms of entertainment.
If, as may well be the case, on our entering the Common Market the Council of Ministers accepts the Commission's advice to harmonise the tax, not at 10 per cent., but at 17 per cent. or at 20 per cent., and if the Council of Ministers reaches an agreement, would not the House of Commons have to accept it without any possibility of amendment? If I am right about that, I warn my hon. Friends who voted for Britain's entry into Europe, that this 10 per cent. tax could well be 15 per cent. or 17 per cent., as it is in some EEC countries.
This evening my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) and I should have been attending a boxing dinner at the World Sporting Club, but we have put our duties here first. The Minister probably did not understand the point I made in my intervention. My good friend Jack Solomons is running the affair this evening. Harry Levine organises events at the Empire Pool. The Empire Pool is let to Harry Levine at a certain charge. If the Wembley authorities have to increase the charge because they must pay VAT, ipso facto Harry Levine must increase his charges and he will have to charge more in admission prices.
Whatever our views, and whatever the nature of our support for sports, everyone knows that unfortunately Britain is falling down on the aid and support it gives to sporting activities compared with Iron Curtain countries. The Iron Curtain countries pour a great deal of money into their sporting activities but here we try everything we can to damp them down, and in so doing we are harming the prestige of British sport and we are harming our national activities. I ask the Minister to bear this in mind because the people of this country are very disappointed with the Government's attitude about sport and this tax.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) mentioned boxing. I cannot help being reminded of the first British heavyweight champion I ever knew, who was called Phil Scott. He had a habit of saying publicly, "I will now regain my former position". This he invariably did by landing flat on his back in about two rounds. When I listen to hon. Members of the Opposition talking about this matter I cannot help feeling that they are flat on their backs when it comes to facing up to arguments.
Whenever they have been in Government they have invariably tended to increase taxation. They took pride in doing so. The Government have reduced taxation in two years by more than it has ever been reduced before. I should have thought that every form of professional sport must tend to benefit by lower taxes increasing the public's purchasing power. The less the Government take in taxation——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Tell the railwaymen!

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I thought for a moment we were talking about sport, but I will deal with the railwaymen if the hon. Gentleman wishes. I should have thought it was in the interests of sport that the maximum amount of purchasing power should be left in the hands of the public so that they could choose to see sport as I hope more of them will instead of watching it on television as I have to do. If I have to watch it on television I would sooner listen to Eddie Waring


talking about Rugby League than to some of the commentators on soccer.
Perhaps this is a bad Monday to raise this matter because I do not think the reputation of British soccer is particularly high after what happened on Saturday afternoon which did neither Germany nor England very much good because of the way the game was so unsporting and fought to a draw. It must be in the interests of sport to keep taxation as low as possible.

Mr. Lewis: Tell the railwaymen!

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: If the hon. Member for East Ham, or North Ham, or South Ham must make remarks from a sitting position——

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I was saying that the hon. Gentleman was probably right but thousands of railwaymen do not pay tax. How can they save tax when they earn £;17 a week?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member has picked a bad example. I have several hundred railwaymen in my constituency and I know that many of them pay tax. They resent it bitterly, I do not blame them. But they have to pay far more when the Socialists are in power than when we are in power. Those people who are interested in sport have to choose whether they would sooner have taxation as low as possible or have a form of taxation which is expensive to administer.
The whole principle underlying the imposition of VAT is that it simplifies the form of tax collection, it is kept as low as possible and as a result the total amount taken from our people is lower than it could be if a Socialist Government were in power. I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of hon. Members opposite when they talk about their interest in sport. If only they thought for two minutes they would realise that their policies have tended to increase taxation while the present Government's policies have reduced taxation and it must be in the interests of all forms of sport to see that taxation is kept as low as possible. For that reason I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will resist this Amendment.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. John D. Grant: Unlike many hon. Members who have spoken I have been here throughout the

debate. I am conscious of the desire of many of them to get away to their various sporting activities so I will be brief.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned my constituency interest in that I have in my constituency the club with the best record in British football, Arsenal. I do not want to weary hon. Members with the number of cups and medals they have won, but I want to pass on a problem raised with me by the secretary of that club, one of the most respected administrators in the game.
It is a question raised briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), namely the extraordinary administrative muddle that seems likely to be caused by the 10 per cent. figure. I wrote to the Chancellor about this on 10th April and explained to him the dilemma posed over admission prices. If the price is 30p and 10 per cent. is added, it will make it 33p, which will present difficulties at the turnstile in accepting money and giving change. If the Government had a view on this—they have had a long time to think about it—perhaps the Financial Secretary would like to intervene and tell me what it is. I will gladly give way.
Obviously he does not want to do so and presumably he has not got an answer. It may be that clubs will feel obliged to round up their admission charges to 50p or even £1. Football is an integral part of the lives of many people and this will be a most inflationary move. It is no good the Financial Secretary talking about the 1 he saves putting everything right. That I seems to have been designed to cover every sort of increase.
I had intended to deal with the question of the effect on leisure-time facilities generally, which will be damaged by the Bill, but in view of the hour I will not do so.
The Chancellor sems to be turning back the stopwatch considerably and nothing we have heard from the Financial Secretary can give us any reassurance. I do not think that the Chancellor has any personal interest in sport but it seems as if he is about to achieve a remarkable sporting treble—he has probably hit his own wicket, kicked the ball into his own


net and he might become known as Britain's best-known horizontal lightweight.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: I shall not waste time by cheering for a particular team.
The Minister hardly mentioned the question of tax avoidance or evasion or implementation of the value added tax and the way in which it may affect football, as it has in the Common Market countries. The Minister seemed to assume that practically 95 per cent. of the income of a football club came through the turnstiles. He did not seem to be aware that in many football clubs there is a club producing income to run the football club—in other words, there is a supporters' club which may have a turnover of £ £15,000, £20,000 or £30,000 a year. It could run dances on which it might have to reclaim V.A.T. and then hand over the money to the parent club. There is then an anomaly. The parent club can claim back the tax which the supporters' club has paid. For instance, Sheffield Wednesday has a restaurant and a night club. The restaurant sells hot dinners on the match days. It has a supporters' club which runs dances to raise funds for the parent club.
There are many aspects of this matter which the Minister has failed to recognise and which could lead to loopholes through which the tax could be avoided. I understand that £4 million goes from football into the Exchequer. It is probably the first time that the Government have taken as much as this off the top of the game.
In Italy there has been a great deal of patronage in sport. The big football clubs there have been subsidised to a tremendous extent by firms such as Fiat and Olivetti. Denis Law went to play for an Italian football club and discovered that, although his wages came from the club, the flat in which he lived belonged to a prominent industrialist in the town and another prominent industrialist provided him with a motor car for his own use. Another industrialist might give something as a gift to the club so that it did not receive income on which it had to pay tax. Patronage and sponsorship have come into the game to a substantial extent. Not just 2 per cent. or

3 per cent. but often as much as 25 per cent. of a club's income may come in the form of gifts.
In the past, supporters have provided the resources for building a stand. In future will a supporters' club buy a player and give him to the club and pay his wages? Small clubs such as Workshop and Retford, in order to avoid the £5,000 limit, take a blanket round the ground and people put money in it instead of charging for admission at the gate. How would the income be assessed in these cases? Suppose the club donated blocks of free tickets to schools to encourage school children to go to a match. How would that be assessed?
I am convinced that, once this tax is in operation, we shall see a dramatic extension of sponsorship, tax fiddling, tax evasion and marginal tax avoidance. I wish that the Minister had spoken after my speech so that he could have replied to my points.

Mr. Brian Walden: I am sure that it is your wish, Mrs. Butler, and that of the Committee that I be brief. Therefore, I greatly regret having to put a point of order to you. It is apparent to the Chair, is it, that the Opposition will wish to press not only Amendment No. 32 but Amendment No. 53 to a Division?

The Temporary Chairman: I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means has agreed that there should be a separate Division on Amendment No. 53 when we reach it on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Walden: Thank you very much, Mrs. Butler.
I will try, as I say, to be brief despite the fact that it has been a long debate and a great many points have been raised, and the fact that there were some fairly long speeches from the Front Benches. For once I do not want to emulate them.
It must be apparent to all reasonable people in the Committee, and I take them to be the whole Committee, that what is happening here is a kind of legerdemain: when a point has been made it is denounced by the making of another point. When one says that this is a sort of entertainments tax the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) says, "It cannot be, because everything else is being taxed as well". If anyone says it is not an entertainments tax because it


does not fall on all entertainments—and that is true—and it is suggested that all may be zero rated, then the hon. Member for Worthing says, "That just shows the danger of making exemptions, and we must know where we are". When anyone says that this will be imposed on football clubs, to take one example, since that relates to Amendment No. 53, on which we shall vote tomorrow, then hon. Members opposite say that it will be more than offset by the removal of purchase tax and selective employment tax. It is like trying to nail red currant jelly to a wall: one never knows what exactly one has got hold of.
I do not want to detain the Committee by taking time to rebut all the points, but I want to knock very firmly on the head the argument put several times that what is being put on admission charges of football clubs is substantially less than purchase tax and selective employment tax. It is not. It is a massively greater imposte, and I have figures to demonstrate that.
Nottingham Forest Football Club in 1970–71 paid in SET £6,326 and in purchase tax £555; it paid a total of £6,881. It took in gross receipts at the gate £166,350. I have figures which I will gladly give the Financial Secretary, and which I could quote, from Swindon, Bolton and Gillingham. I have clubs from different divisions. They all reveal the same picture—that the VAT charge on admissions will be double SET and purchase tax. One of my hon. Friends is saying that in one case it will he four times as much.
It is absurd to talk about there being some sort of rebate through the buying of jerseys and boots and socks. The clubs do not depend on that kind of thing. They depend on the money they get at the gates.
The Government would be right if there were no elasticity in demand, and if this 10 per cent. on admission charges were put on the same number of people, but there will be a smaller number. The final consumer is to pay another 10 per cent. There will not be the same number of customers. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell), normally an exceedingly staunch supporter of the Government, said that it does not

matter because everything else would similarly bear the burden in the entertainment world. He was quite wrong. The person who watches games on the television will not pay the tax. Hon. Gentlemen opposite frequently tell us on these benches that if a commodity for which demand is elastic has to bear increased prices the same number of purchasers must not be expected, and there will not be the same revenue. Whatever the Treasury may think of that, soccer and rugby clubs depend absolutely on what they take at the gates.
10.45 p.m.
Does the Minister know that of the 92 clubs in the Football League only 12 make a profit? Those 12 cannot exist in a 12-club league. They depend on the other 80 not simply for playing fixtures—because there are four divisions—but for buying players and developing the nature of the game. Without transfer fees clubs in the lower division could not exist; they exist only by selling players. The Minister says that there will be no VAT on transfer fees, but there will be VAT on admission charges and—to be frank and even brutal—nothing would drag me to see clubs like Darlington anyway, and if I had to pay another 10 per cent. I would not go at all.
With all due respect to the inhabitants of Darlington, Doncaster and Altrincham, nothing would persuade me to go to their matches. Third and fourth division clubs are not particularly attractive anyway and with more and more media coverage of sport we shall not be able to put up admission prices and the blow will fall on the clubs. The Minister and the Treasury Bench are wrong to say that this is a minor matter of no great consequence. It will have a serious effect, particularly on professional sport. As the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Capt. W. Elliot) said, it may be that there are groups of sturdy amateurs who will happily cough up another 10 per cent. for the Government because they think they will be helping England——

Captain W. Elliot: The hon. Member is misquoting me. I did not say anything of the sort. I said that the drop in attendance at sporting functions was often for other than financial reasons.

Mr. Walden: Of course, but what difference does that make to the argument? Let us suppose that soccer is not attractive to watch; why should we expect to get more people to watch it by sticking another 10 per cent. on the gate? I do not see the logic of the argument.

Captain W. Elliot: If admission were free for some soccer teams, that would not raise the attendance.

Mr. Walden: That may be so, but we have to face the present situation, as every rational Conservative should know. It may be that cricket is a boring game as now played; it may be that soccer is no longer played attractively; boxing may not be what it was; we may have a heavyweight boxing champion even worse than Phil Scott. But we have to face the present situation, and no one can suppose that it will be improved by making it more difficult for spectators to watch.

Captain W. Elliot: Captain W. Elliot rose—

Mr. Walden: Not again, as I am trying to wind up the debate and I want to make one or two other points.
It is completely false to say that purchase tax will be offset. In sports such as boxing, swimming and athletics the governing bodies do not provide the equipment from the gate money. The players themselves provide it, so there will not be an offset in that respect. The Minister said that the effect of VAT will be considerable, but I do not think he has thought how considerable it will be. He said that those paying income tax were I a week better off and could afford to pay more at the gate. I want to know just how much further this £1 a week is to be bent. Every time we

speak of a rent increase, they say that we are a £ a week better off. Every time we refer to a rates increase, we are told that we can pay it out of that 1 a week. Now it seems that people will have to go to watch Derby County and Arsenal out of that famous £1 a week—which, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, will be markedly eroded before ever the next football season starts.

The hon. Gentleman then said that the relief to small traders would affect many clubs, but he has not thought it through, and the Government have not thought it through on sport at all. Many of the small clubs are in any case terrified to put up their admission charges because to do so will put them over the £5,000 turnover rate and they will then be liable for VAT. That turnover concession is not very much after all—it is on turnover, not on profits. It is marginal, and many clubs are just about at that level and dying to claim the exemption. They cannot afford to put up admission charges because they cannot afford VAT, but they will have to raise them in any case because of the general rise in prices.

I could say a good deal more, but the House would not wish me to do so. I could deal with a number of other points, but I do not need to do so. I am sure that I have already said enough to convince my right hon. and hon. Friends that on this Amendment, as on so many other Amendments, they can do no better for the activity concerned, in this case, for me, professional sport—although we are concerned with sport in general—than to vote against what is a monumentally ill-thought-out tax.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 232, Noes 255.

Division No. 180.]
AYES
[10.52 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Albu, Austen
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Concannon, J. D.


Archer, Peter {Rowley Regis)
Booth, Albert
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Armstrong, Ernest
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Cronin, John


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Buchan, Norman
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)


Barnes, Michael
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dalyell, Tam


Baxter, William
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cant, R. B.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)


Bishop, E. S.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Deakins, Eric




de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kaufman, Gerald
Pentland, Norman


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kelley, Richard
Perry, Ernest G.


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Doig, Peter
Kinnock, Neil
Prescott, John


Dormand, J. D.
Lambie, David
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lamborn, Harry
Price, William (Rugby)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamond, James
Probert, Arthur


Dunnett, Jack
Latham, Arthur
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Eadie, Alex
Lawson, George
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Edelman, Maurice
Leadbitter, Ted
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Richard, Ivor


Ellis, Tom
Leonard, Dick
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


English, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Ewing, Harry
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Roper, John


Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rose, Paul B.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lipton, Marcus
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rowlands, Ted


Foley, Maurice
Loughlin, Charles
Sandelson, Neville


Foot, Michael
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Ford, Ben
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Foster, Sir John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McBride, Neil
Short, Mrs. Renée (Whampton. N.E.)


Freeson, Reginald
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McElhone, Frank
Sillars, James


Garrett, W. E.
McGuire, Michael
Silverman, Julius


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mackenzie, Gregor
Skinner, Dennis


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mackie, John
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Golding, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Spearing, Nigel


Gourlay, Harry
Maclennan, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Grant, George (Morpeth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stallard, A. W.


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mallalieu, J. p. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Strang, Gavin


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Marks, Kenneth
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marsden, F.
Swain, Thomas


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Hamling, William
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mayhew, Christopher
Tinn, James


Harper, Joseph
Meacher, Michael
Torney, Tom


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tuck, Raphael


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mendelson, John
Urwin, T. W.


Hattersley, Roy
Mikardo, Ian
Varley, Eric G.


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Millan, Bruce
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Heffer, Eric S.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hooson, Emlyn
Milne, Edward
Wallace, George


Horam, John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, ltchen)
Watkins, David


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Weitzman, David


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Moyle, Roland
Whitehead, Phillip


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Murray, Ronald King
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Janner, Greville
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Paget, R. T.
Woof, Robert


John, Brynmor
Palmer, Arthur



Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Mr. James Wellbeloved and


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. James A. Dunn.


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Pendry, Tom





NOES


Adley, Robert
Body, Richard
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Boscawen, Robert
Cary, Sir Robert


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bossom, Sir Cilve
Channon, Paul


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Bowden, Andrew
Chapman, Sydney


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Braine, Bernard
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Astor, John
Bray, Ronald
Churchill, W. S.


Atkins, Humphrey
Brewis, John
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)


Awdry, Daniel
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Clegg, Walter


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Cooke, Robert


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cooper, A. E.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Cordle, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bryan, Paul
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bell, Ronald
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Cormack, Patrick


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosporl)
Buck, Antony
Costain, A. p.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bullus, Sir Eric
Crouch, David


Blaker, Peter
Burden, F. A.
Crowder, F. P.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)







Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Dixon, Piers
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Raison, Timothy


Drayson, G. B.
Kinsey, J. R.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kirk, Peter
Redmond, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Kitson, Timothy
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Eden, Sir John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knox, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lambton, Antony
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lamont, Norman
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Emery, Peter
Lane, David
Ridsdale, Julian


Eyre, Reginald
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Farr, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fell, Anthony
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rost, Peter


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fidler, Michael
Longden, Gilbert
Scott, Nicholas


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Loveridge, John
Sharples, Richard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Luce, R. N.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacArthur, Ian
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fortescue, Tim
McGrindle, R. A.
Simeons, Charles


Foster, Sir John
McLaren, Martin
Sinclair, Sir George


Fowler, Norman
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fox, Marcus
Macmillian, Maurice (Farnham)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Soref, Harold


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Speed, Keith


Gardner, Edward
Maddan, Martin
Spence, john


Gibson-Watt, David
Madel, David
Sproat, Iain


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stainton, Keith


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Marten, Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mather, Carol
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Angus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Goodhew, Victor
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Stokes, John


Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sutcliffe, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tapsell, Peter


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Green, Alan
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tebbit, Norman


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Moate, Roger
Temple, John M.


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Money, Ernle
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monro, Hector
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hall-Davies, A. G. F.
Montgomery, Fergus
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
More, Jasper
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, s.)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Trew, Peter


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Charles
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hastings, Stephen
Mudd, David
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Havers, Michael
Murton, Oscar
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hayhoe, Barney
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Heseltine, Michael
Neave, Airey
Waddington, David


Hicks, Robert
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Higgins, Terence L.
Normanton, Tom
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hiley, Joseph
Nott, John
Warren, Kenneth


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Onslow, Cranley
Weatherill, Bernard


Holland, Phillip
Oppenheim. Mrs. Sally
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hordern, Peter
Osborn, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hornby, Richard
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wikinson, John


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Winterton, Nicholas


Hunt, John
Parkinson, Cecil
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Iremonger, T. L.
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Woodnutt, Mark


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Worsley, Marcus


Jessel, Toby
Pink, R. Bonner
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Younger, Hn. George


Jopling, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)



Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Kershaw, Anthony
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.




Question accordingly negatived.


To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Barber.]


Committee report Progress: to sit again tomorrow.

FERTILISERS SCHEME

11.4 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Mills): I beg to move, That the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 25th April, be approved.
The purpose of this Scheme is to continue for a further year the payment of claims made by farmers and growers for a contribution towards the cost of their fertilisers. The rates of contribution, which are specified in the Schedule to the Scheme, have been reduced by approximately 60 per cent, compared with those at present in force. This follows the proposals in the Annual Review White Paper that £20 million of the fertiliser subsidy should be used to provide resources in other ways. The total cost of the subsidy in 1972–73, if the House approves the Scheme, is now expected to be about £13 million. In all other respects, the Scheme is similar to the one which is due to expire on 31st May.
It may be helpful to hon. Members if I touch briefly on the history of this particular subsidy and then say something about the proposed reduction in rates.
Schemes in the present form have existed for 20 years. During this period the annual consumption of fertilisers in the United Kingdom has increased by about 1 million nutrient tons, from 830,000 to some 1,825,000 tons. There can be no doubt that the subsidy has played an important part, particularly in the early years, in encouraging this greater use of fertilisers. Since 1960 it has been customary to compensate for increases in fertiliser consumption by adjusting the rates of contribution from time to time so as to keep the annual cost of subsidy to about £32 million. Without such adjustments, the cost of the subsidy would have risen to unreasonably high levels. This year's proposals mark a radical change in the history of this Scheme.
A cut of 60 per cent, in the rates of fertiliser subsidy, equivalent on average to about £4 to £4·50 per ton, may strike the House as being severe, and some hon. Members may fear an adverse effect on the level of consumption. This is a possibility which, of course, has been care-

fully considered by my right hon. Friend However, we are confident that the Annual Review determinations as a whole will encourage rather than discourage the efficient use of fertilisers. Farmers and growers are well aware of the value of fertilisers and, given the resources and the right conditions, we believe that they will use them effectively.
I do not wish to stray from the point, but it is relevant to these proposals to remind the House that under the terms of the Annual Review the amount by which the fertiliser subsidy has been reduced will be made available in other ways—that is very important indeed—mainly in the form of higher end price guarantees and also by other special measures, some of which the House has already approved, for hill farmers and horticulturists. Beyond this, the livestock production incentives provided by the Review determination will, we believe, also encourage the increased use of fertilisers, particularly on grass land where the scope for expansion in this respect is greatest.
In the light of present conditions in the farming industry and the promise for the future, we think, therefore, that it is no longer necessary or desirable specifically to encourage the use of fertilisers by means of a direct subsidy at the present high level. The farmers' unions have accepted the proposals.
I should have liked to end by giving the House some information about the future of this subsidy, but no decisions have been taken. The Scheme which I am now submitting will, if the House approves, expire at the end of May, 1973. Decisions as to the future of the Scheme beyond that date will be taken in the light of circumstances at the time and in consultation with the farming industry.
I ask the House to approve the 1972 Fertiliser Scheme now before it, so enabling the subsidy on fertilisers to be paid during the year 1972–73 at the specified rates.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins: The hon. Member has been rather briefer than he need have been in view of the importance of the Scheme. This is, in a way, an historic occasion. It marks the beginning of the end for a well-tried and


successful system of supporting agriculture which, as the hon. Gentleman said, has lasted, with minor variations, since 1952.
The cut of 60 per cent. £20 million—going on to end prices is a major policy switch which was mentioned in this year's Price Review White Paper. The Minister called it a radical change. One of my hon. Friends called it a severe change. I think that it ought to be described as a drastic change, if not a revolutionary one, particularly if the subsidy is to be phased out altogether.
There are one or two questions which I think need answering, even in the short space of the debate on this Scheme. First, does the Minister have any idea or estimate of the effect on fertiliser prices, which will obviously be of great interest to the farming community? It is obviously unlikely that prices will fall. The likelihood is that the cost of fertilisers to farmers will rise. In the last few years the gross expenditure by the farming community on fertilisers and lime has been increasing very rapidly—at about 7 per cent. a year. Are the Government confident that this rate of increase will go on even with this severe cut in the fertiliser subsidy?
Far more important than the pricing of fertilisers is the whole question of the effect of the Scheme on the amount of fertiliser that is likely to be used in future. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware of the tremendous importance of the part that fertilisers have played in improving the agricultural productivity of farming—something which we all support. The Minister gave us some indication of that when he mentioned a more than 100 per cent. increase in the use of fertilisers in the last 20 years. He could have gone on and given us other figures, which I am sure are available from farm costing schemes, of the actual increase in productivity per acre.
This is a view which the Government appear to share, because there is mention of the importance of fertilisers to the agriculture economy in paragraph 7 of the White Paper, but are the Government confident that the same amount of fertiliser is likely to be used in future? Is there not at least a danger that some farmers—although we hope not the bulk of them—will be tempted to skimp on this essential feature of good husbandry?
Such a policy could be false economy, particularly on grass land where, we all agree, there is tremendous scope for the increased and better use of fertilisers.
My third question relates to soil structure and fertility. Does this new policy—and I think that it is a new policy embodied in this Scheme—mean that the Government are leaving problems of soil structure and fertility to individual farmers to resolve? The hon. Gentleman will recall the Agricultural Advisory Committee's Report in 1971 on these problems. Several of its recommendations had a bearing on the use of fertilisers, particularly on grass land, and stressed the beneficial nature of this process in agriculture. This is not an unimportant point, because the soil is part of the fixed capital both of agriculture and of the nation, and correct fertiliser application is an essential means both of maintaining that fixed capital and of realising its full potential. This is a matter in which any Government must retain not only an interest but a measure of control.
If fertiliser prices rise, which is likely, farmers will have to become much more calculating and more precise in the use they make of fertilisers, and one wonders whether the present Government advisory service will be fully capable of assisting farmers in this context. Obviously the fertiliser manufacturers and merchants will do their best, but this is such a serious problem that it cannot be left to the trade to give the appropriate advice in individual cases.
Is this cut being made because the fertiliser subsidy is incompatible with Common Market regulations? The Minister must have expected my hon. Friends to ask this question. If so, why does not the Minister have the courage of his EEC convictions and say so, for the farmers of Britain would be interested to know the true position.
The Minister said he had not yet taken any decisions about the future. Is it not likely that if we have a 60 per cent. cut in one year, the future of this subsidy must be very uncertain? Cannot the Government clear up this uncertainty by saying one way or the other whether the subsidy will be removed completely next year? This is a vital question to which the farmers and the trade are entitled to an answer now. They should not have to wait until next March, April or May.
If the subsidy is being phased out, what is the reason? Why could it not have been done more gradually, rather than by this swingeing cut which can greatly affect a number of farmers and particularly those who have been late in ordering their fertilisers at the old rate and find that they cannot get deliveries before 31st May?

11.17 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) expressed concern over a number of points, and I suppose that it is likely that fertiliser prices will rise somewhat. However, he forgot to mention that my right hon. Friend is endeavouring to increase the end price and to benefit the farmer.
In any event, I do not think the hon. Gentleman's fears about farmers skimping on fertiliser application holds good nowadays because the farmer of today is a very different type of person from the farmer for whom the fertiliser subsidy was originally designed. Modern farmers are more highly skilled and scientific. They will continue to make the best use, and where necessary increasing use, of fertilisers.
In his wish to farm well with the use of fertilisers, the farmer will benefit the whole time from the increased support which the Minister has given to the industry as a whole this year. Far from the swingeing cut, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow called it, most farmers this year will obtain a double boost. Most farmers have obtained their fertilisers for the current year with the aid of the subsidy. They will benefit from the increased end price. In addition, a number of farmers will purchase fertilisers for next year before the subsidy is cut on 1st June. It is clear, if one looks at the matter that way, that the Minister is doing the industry a considerable service by his handling of the fertiliser subsidy this year. I have no doubt that farmers have appreciated this point and will take great advantage of it, and will once more have cause to thank my right hon. Friend for the magnificent job he is doing.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: I congratulate the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) on his

ingenious defence of the Parliamentary Secretary's point about the good he has done farmers by having them spend more money before 1st June than they would normally have to spend.
I was rather amused at the Parliamentary Secretary's opening remarks that the purpose of the Scheme was to continue the fertiliser subsidy and, in the next sentence, to reduce it by £20 million I well remember the Parliamentary Secretary and his hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), who we used to call the nuisance twins when the Labour Party were in office. When we cut the subsidy by about 1 million to make it £32 million, the synthetic indignation was nobody's business.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Mackie: No, he will not. The hon. Gentleman must take all that he gets from the Opposition when he cuts the subsidy by what my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) said was a severe cut but what I would call a savage cut.

Mr. Mills: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Mackie: The hon. Gentleman is a nice chap, so I will give way.

Mr. Mills: I ask the hon. Gentleman to cast his mind back to the circumstances of that time. Production was dropping, and the Socialist Government gave no increases in the end price. My right hon. Friend has given new confidence, production is increasing, and he has added to the end price.

Mr. Mackie: I did not intend to speak for long, but I shall now tell a story about an Aberdeenshire farmer who was buying his sister's farm at Ellon from a mortgagee. In order to keep the price down he was trying to relate how much improvement he had done and how many drains he had dug, saying that he had carted 600 loads of stones for drains, and so on. The mortgagee could not be bothered with that sort of thing and he said, "If you tell me that again I shall begin to believe it." The farmer said, "If you let me tell it again I shall believe it myself." That is the position of which the Minister and the Minister of State are trying to persuade themselves.
They have told the story so often. The Minister has been tearing about the country telling farmers how enthusiastic they are, and he is beginning to believe it himself.
To return to the fertiliser subsidy, I had reached the point when I said that this was a savage cut of almost one-third. The Parliamentary Secretary says that the money will be used in other ways in agriculture. But what way could be better than this one? I am convinced that an increase in the price of fertiliser will have a psychological effect on farmers.
The Minister says that it will make us more efficient. The hon. Member for Devizes said that over the years we had looked to using fertilisers more efficiently. The profitability of farmers, even in the last two years, has made us look to all the uses to which we have to put fertilisers. We have certainly not been splashing it about, as has been suggested. The money spent on fertiliser grants goes into the land. That is so with other grants, such as building grants. It is permanent. Its importance to agriculture is the same as that for lime and drainage. This is the advantage of this type of grant, besides putting it on to the end price—which, for all we know, may be spent in Monte Carlo or a similar place.
There is something in standing on our own feet, and so on, but these grants have done a great deal for agriculture over the years. If their removal is simply to tie in with the EEC, that should be stated. Even so, why remove them now? Why not keep them until the last moment? The Minister has taken a retrograde step. The three farmers on the Government Front Bench should reconsider it.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hicks: The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) said that we on this side of the House were trying to convince ourselves that confidence was returning to the farming industry. I represent a constituency in the very critical West Country, critical in the context of people who know their agriculture and horticulture: they certainly call a spade a spade when the need arises. When my right hon. Friend the Minister visited my constituency early last year not only did he receive a good reception but he was able to leave the

hall by the front door which indicates that things are improving in agriculture.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who is my parliamentary and political neighbour across the water, said that consumption of fertilisers had risen by 1 million tons over the last decade. This is a welcome trend. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) rightly said, conditions change. Today, unlike some years ago, farmers and growers are not only more highly skilled but they have a far greater degree of scientific knowledge at their disposal, knowledge towards which the trade has contributed. Therefore, the farmer will not discard the fertiliser simply because there has been a change in the degree of support.
I welcome the change in emphasis by putting more money into the end price. It is right that we should be more selective and give those sections of agriculture and horticulture where the need arises a greater degree of support than hitherto. One of the ways in which some of the money is available to be used because of the cut in the fertiliser subsidy is to help the horticultural improvement scheme. This is right, particularly in view of our intending move into the European Economic Community.
My growers in the Tamar Valley support this improvement and this trend. With the changing conditions it is right that we should analyse the needs of the farming community. This means not only a higher end price but also that we must be more selective in our aids and grants. Such has been the change in attitude and confidence over the past two years that farmers and growers look to the future with confidence. Those whom I represent in the West Country believe that they can meet the challenge of Europe. They realise that there are new opportunities for them. This modification of the support Scheme will not stand in the way of their progress.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Mark Hughes: The OECD Report on Low Incomes in Agriculture, published in 1964—I quote it with approval even though it is now eight years out of date—says on page 40:
As compared with price supports, input subsidies have some advantage for the small


farm, in that they are paid on the whole amount of the item used on the farm, and not only on that part which eventually leads to production for the market.
Although the Parliamentary Secretary may well argue that there is an aliquot correlation between the amount of diminution of the fertiliser subsidy and the proportionate increase in end price, he cannot argue that those who benefit from an increase in the end price are the same people who would have benefited from the maintenance of the fertiliser subsidy. That he is robbing Peter to pay Paul is inevitable. It may be desirable, and that is for the Government to argue, but it cannot conceivably be argued that those who benefit from higher end prices are precisely the same as those who benefited from the fertiliser subsidy at its previous level. The Government might argue that it is desirable that there should be a shift in this way, but we have had no such argument from them.
In the year 1970–71 expenditure prior to subsidy on fertilisers subject to grant was about £163 million. The subsidy amounted to about £42 million. The disturbing fact is that over the decade 1960–70 consumption of non-nitrogenous fertiliisers remained depressingly constant. Home deliveries of phosphates in 1960 were 459,000 tons. In 1970 they dropped to 424,000 tons. The figures are taken from the Annual Abstract of Statistics provided by the Ministry. There was a relatively small increase in deliveries of potash from 426,000 tons to 436,000. In compound fertilisers, which make up by far the largest element, there was a decrease from 2,757,000 tons to 2,604,000 tons. Only in nitrogenous fertilisers was there a significant—and I expect a very welcome—increase in home deliveries to the British farmer. Of the others, in spite of the level of subsidy, there was no real increase in the net consumption of fertilisers.
Unless the figures published in the Annual Abstract of Statistics for 1971 are totally erroneous, or my transcription of them is in error, there can be no question that with the one exception the decade saw deplorable stagnation in the consumption of fertilisers. Whether under Socialist or Tory Government, the policy on fertiliser subsidy remained the same. I am not arguing that it was desirable to remove the subsidy.
The Schedule that is annexed to the Statutory Instrument suggests that there is a specific contribution for water-soluble phosphate which is reduced from its previous level. There is a specific contribution for nitrogen and there is a specific contribution for phosphoric acid, P2O5, insoluble in water other than basic slag or potassic basic slag.
It cannot be argued that the presence of the fertiliser subsidy has increased the consumption of fertiliser in this country. However much we on this side may wish to defend the continuance of this subsidy, we cannot argue that its presence has increased the consumption. To pretend otherwise is to deny the reality of the situation. Only between 1960–70 and with nitrogenous fertilisers has there been a real increase. If one then turns——

Mr. Deakins: Could the explanation be that the consumption of certain fertilisers has fallen over the past few years because these were fertilisers mainly used for cereal production, whereas there are a number of limits which farmers have discovered to the amount of fertiliser that can be put in and the amount of cereal that can be got out through the constant growing of cereal on the same land? The attention of farmers has therefore switched from the use of fertilisers for cereals to the use of fertilisers on grass land, which has much the biggest potential for increasing the agricultural output.

Mr. Hughes: Clearly the increase in the use of nitrogenous fertilisers suggests that the use of grass land fertilisers, with rotational grass in particular has played a considerable part in any change in the aggregate pattern of fertiliser consumption.
The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) will accept that there is one important element which this change carries with it. A farmer who in the past has been in the habit of applying a fertiliser to a winter wheat crop in the back end, as we call it in the North-East, would receive a payment on the subsidy in the early months of the following year. He would put the fertiliser down in September, October, November and would receive the payment in the following January, February or, if the Minister were particularly slow, by March.
In general he would have to carry that proportion of his fertiliser costs which were covered by subsidy for a matter of 10 weeks. Under the new Scheme he has to carry those costs for 13 months. There is a significant difference between a bank overdraft for six weeks and a bank overdraft for 13 months. He may well recoup his additional costs 13 months later, with an increased price for his wheat but who will pay the interest charges on his overdraft? The housewife. It is upon her that the £13 million-plus interest charges will rest. There is a time lag between when the subsidy was payable and when the farmer receives it. Under the new Scheme he may well recoup his costs on the end price but he has to carry those costs for a twelvemonth. He will not carry them for love. He will not say, "It is my benign duty to the Conservative Party to carry these costs". He will pass them on. That is what the Government are encouraging him to do.
That is precisely what this Scheme is about. The Government are encouraging the farmer to pass on to the consumer not only increased production costs on prime cost but the cost of the bank loans and the servicing of them. The Parliamentary Secretary says that it is much cheaper. It is much cheaper for some. For my constituents in Durham, where one good row of pit cottages represents more voters than all the farmers put together, that row of pit cottagers will not get an immediate benefit from this 60 per cent. diminution of the fertiliser grant. They will be called upon to nay this increase through the cost of their food.
The hon. Members for Devizes and Bodmin argued that we now have a new race of farmers, intelligent beyond measure, capable of distinguishing at a glance——

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: At a stroke.

Mr. Hughes: —at a stroke, the requirements of their soil. No farmer is in any doubt as to the precise proportions of phosphate, potash and nitrogen his soil requires. Farmers do not need such services as the diminished National Agricultural Advisory Service or the new advisory service—or such bits of it as will be left after the cutting by the Minister. This breed of farmer will make

better use of the fertiliser which is un-subsidised than farmers did two years previously with the subsidised fertiliser.
So long as the Government do not realise that fertiliser is the only substitute for land, and that that is the scarcest commodity in these islands, so long will their agricultural policy be based on a total fallacy. The input fertiliser subsidy increases the effective acreage of this country and as such it benefits equally the large farmer and the small farmer. High prices do not provide anything like so equal a benefit to the agricultural community or to the consumer.
This Scheme, apparently innocuous, reduces in one year whereas it should on all grounds of equity have been phased over three years. As the Minister well knows, the trade is adamant that a longer period would have been more suitable. This reduction represents once more a shift from the poor farmer to the rich farmer, from the taxpayer to the consumer. If that is why the Government want this Scheme, they should be ashamed.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: The Ministers from the Ministry of Agriculture always say that the farmers and the unions are with them and that is why they do these great acts of mercy and kindness for the farming community. I therefore felt compelled to obtain the memorandum of the National Farmers Union of Wales to the Ministry on the 1972 Price Review. No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary has heard of the National Farmers Union of Wales, a considerable body in the Principality. Among major recommendations it made about various forms of grants for the Price Review was one that the rates for lime and fertilisers should be substantially increased. The Parliamentary Secretary always talks of the farmers being with his party. He will have to be careful that his statements are more accurate than hitherto.
There is no doubt about the problem confronting us. Despite the very lavish increase in grants over the years the expected increase in consumption of fertilisers has just not happened. The figures, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes),


show that in Wales in 1969–70 the consumption of fertilisers containing nitrogen and phosphate dropped considerably. In March, 1971, there was a considerable increase in the grant of 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. and in the ensuing 12 months there were considerable increases in consumption of fertiliser. There is, therefore, a direct correlation between the size of the grant and the consumption of fertilisers. Whoever is to wind up the debate must tell us first of all whether the grant system as it operates is effective, and whether it has been wasteful. Secondly, does he consider that there is no longer any point in switching grant to the poorer—the hill—regions? The Minister has these great expansion programmes, and I am sure that those are the areas from which he expects the increased consumption of fertilisers, and thereafter of production, to come. If this is the case he must tell us why he is doing away with grants of this nature, as they are the essence of the major production boost which he is to bring forward.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: My hon. Friends have outlined the background to this Scheme, and especially has my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes)—the doom watch; but, of course, there was more substantial truth in his prophecies than in the rather superficial approach made to the subject by the Parliamentary Secretary tonight. I do not blame that Minister in particular because, of course, it is his right hon. Friend who must bear the responsibility. I am glad he is here with us tonight——

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: For a change.

Mr. Buchan: Certainly a change from the last time we discussed the whole agricultural policy in relation to the EEC. I still think that that was one of the most disgraceful episodes of agricultural debates in this House.
However, be that as it may, the right hon. Gentleman, in his statement on the Price Review, said:
We have also decided to switch about 60 per cent. of the fertiliser subsidy to end prices. This will give the industry greater flexibility in the application of resources. In the case of horticulture, the fertiliser change will be offset by increasing the combined

grant rate under the Horticulture Improvement Scheme from 35 to 40 per cent. Hill farmers will be helped by increasing the winter keep subsidies.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March. 1972; Vol. 832, c. 413.]
The words are repeated in the White Paper. Not that there will be a 60 per cent. cut in fertiliser—nothing as obvious as that—but a switch of about 60 per cent. of the fertiliser subsidy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) said, it is an extremely savage cut, a cut of about two-thirds.
The White Paper says exactly the same thing. We are glad we eventually got the White Paper. We did not get it on the day we should have got it, but we are glad we have it now. After a number of words of general introduction we come to paragraph 5:
These are the general considerations which the Government have had in mind in making the determinations after this Review. They have decided to put the chief emphasis on the livestock sector and particularly on cattle…
6.The agricultural industry will need increased resources and improved cash flow…These can be obtained partly from the recent increase in farm income and partly from rising productivity…
7.The Government's view is that the provision of these extra resources is best made through the guarantees on end prices.
The whole emphasis is on increasing production, with a special emphasis on livestock and therefore grass, and it is said that this will be done by switching to end prices. But it is not a switch to the end price by an increase in the end price; it is done by cutting the fertiliser subsidy.
In the same set of paragraphs in which emphasis is laid on the need for production, particularly of livestock and therefore of grass, we are told that we are getting a good exchange by a cut of two-thirds in the fertiliser subsidy. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham is right in saying that it is a switch to the consumer. It is his constituents in the miners' rows in Durham who will bear the cost. The end price means our end price.
Will the Scheme be effective? One of the most worrying aspects of the Scheme which is exemplified in the Government's entire agricultural policy is the mad concept that somehow market forces will feed through and solve every problem. I know the Government are keen on going into Europe, but they need not


be keen on ruining the agricultural industry in the process. One would have thought that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) had become Minister of Agriculture. Everything is to be left to the market price.
I will quote from Professor George Houston:
To begin with the present Minister of Agriculture seemed determined to expose the hills and uplands to those lovable and respectable market forces we all know so well. With the emphasis on end price, direct help to hill men seemed at risk. Almost overnight, the rural development boards were told to pack their bags; many landowners no doubt slept more soundly in their beds, though some waited expectantly for a letter from the Forestry Commission.
There is clear recognition from an academic and from farmers that the direct support given to sectors of the industry is being ignored and a portmanteau approach is being used dependent entirely on the end price and the market forces.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior) rose—

Mr. Buchan: The Minister of Agriculture is going to comment!

Mr. Prior: It will be a pretty lively comment from the Minister of Agriculture, too. I suggest that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) and his hon. Friends consult the hill farmers and ask them whether they prefer the policy we have adopted in the last two years to the policy the Labour Government adopted in the previous five years. I have no doubt what answer they would give. Furthermore, under the present Government's policy, the hill farmers have had high increases in hill cow and hill sheep subsidies, apart from higher returns from produce they sell than they had under the policy of the Labour Government. What the Opposition are saying shows a total ignorance of what is happening in the agricultural industry.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) continues, will he ask the Minister to recall letters I sent to him from both unions in my constituency asking him and his colleagues not to be so bland in their statements that the

state of the agricultural industry has never been so good as it is at present?

Mr. Prior: I shall be going to Wales before long, and I shall have great pleasure in telling the farmers of Wales what we have achieved and what the Opposition failed to achieve.

Mr. Buchan: I hope the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend do not mind if I come back into the debate. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. The question of increased cost also arises. There is no guarantee in certain sectors of the industry that the end price policy will necessarily work through, and work through equitably. This is the point. There are cuts in the fertiliser subsidies across the board and at the same time a replacement with a special agricultural grant or winter keep without any scientific effort to see whether this is the right kind of substitution and support. There is no reason to suggest that the plus and the minus are in any way compatible.
The kind of argument we have been getting in defence of this step proves the case. There was a young man of Devizes. He comes forward tonight, and suddenly, somehow, a cut becomes a positive virtue. A cut by us was a damn' cut, but a cut by the Government is a means of increasing efficiency. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the purpose was not to make a cut—oh, no; the purpose of a 60 per cent. slash was to encourage efficient use rather than to discourage use. The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot on the one hand take credit for the kind of increase they claim to have been making in certain sectors and, on the other hand, claim credit for all the slashing and the cuts. They must rethink their whole policy, including the whole question of the fertiliser subsidy.
The effect is to push the whole question of support back on to the consumer, but the Government must understand that the resistance of 50 million consumers can be every bit as tough as the toughest Treasury official when approached for money. The Government cannot go helter-skelter into Europe without first having ensured that they have built up production here as much as possible. That means a very selective and careful expansion drive for our grass production


and, above all, for the hill cattle, sheep, and so on.
I accept the general points laid out in the White Paper, but this Scheme is not the way to assist. It is time we had a little more selective application and thought given to the whole of our agricultural industry instead of this continual looking to the consumer to help the Government out of their difficulties. We want to know the kind of estimated equivalency; what will come back into the industry in total on, for example, the winter keep side. On the first day of the Annual Price Review we got the £1 million referred to—is that still the estimate? What is the position to be in the hill areas, in respect of which the Scottish Office should already have worked out the relative plus and minus in the cut in fertiliser and the increase in winter keep.
We shall not oppose this Scheme tonight—it is, in any case, always difficult to oppose such things at this time of night—but we deplore it, and we think that the industry also deplores it. Before the Government talk too soon about getting support from the farmers' unions they should remember that the main argument put up by their officials to achieve acceptance of this cut was the money required for the price schedules. I cannot think of any who defended the cut in itself for the spurious reason advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary that it was in order to try to create efficiency in the industry by cutting the fertiliser subsidy.
We all know the problem of occasional use, but there is no cause to think that we have reached the optimum need in the marginal and hill lands. It is there that a good deal of concentration should be directed, because along with fertilisers land is the one continuing resource we must preserve.

12 midnight.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): We have come to know in many debates on agriculture how the Opposition have to toil, and this debate has demonstrated more clearly than ever just how much they do have to toil in dealing with some of the most important agricultural matters. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) was literally playing with

words and figures in some of the things he said. He talked of this proposal as being a switch to the consumer. He knows that the cut in subsidy is met in part by an increase in deficiency payments. Does he imagine that the consumer as consumer pays for an increase in deficiency payments. One would hardly think that he had been Minister in an agricultural Department, for he shows so little understanding of how the subsidy system works.
The hon. Gentleman also talked of market prices, but, as my right hon. Friend said, let him ask the hill farmers whether they want higher or lower market prices. He would not dare to go to the farmers, certainly in my constituency in the North, and ask them what they would prefer. They did not benefit under the Labour Government. The subsidies are higher in the last year than they have been for many years. The farmers know where they stand, and it is not to the Opposition that they will listen.
I thought that the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) understood agriculture. But what both he and the hon. Member for Renfrew, West forget is that it is only through a strong home agriculture that we can provide much longer-lasting protection for the consumer. This is where the Opposition, with their rather spurious, superficial championship of the consumer, forget the real economic benefits of a strong agriculture in the way the consumer can be benefited. We have seen the Opposition toiling tonight in a way we have not seen before.
But what matters in the debate is the fertiliser subsidy. I note the views of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) and the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) on the importance of proper fertiliser usage and the very good value this subsidy has given to the industry. There is no question about that. I do not dissent from this view of the value of proper fertiliser usage to the industry as a whole. But what has been totally disregarded by the Opposition is that the reduction in subsidy has been made good by an increase in deficiency payments. We have never disguised that fact. I did not see any hidden meaning in what the hon. Member for Renfew, West read out. The case is obvious and I am sorry that it is not clear to him.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West asked what effect there would be on prices. The simple answer is that it will mean an increase in the price of fertiliser by the amount of the reduction in subsidy. However, I think he was seeking to find out what information we have of any changes which the manufacturers might be making. The fertiliser manufacturers subscribed to the CBI agreement. They hope to maintain the 1972 price level as long as they can—one can see that in the present pricing. Obviously, it will depend on the cost position they have to face.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to farmers being perhaps tempted to skimp. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) answered that. It does a disservice to farmers to think that, with the extra resources we are giving them through the deficiency system, they will put the money in their own pockets and will not use it in the interests of good crop and grass land husbandry. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes was right to say that the money that we are putting into the pockets of farmers will be used in the best interests of the agriculture industry. I am confident that it will.

Mr. Buchan: I approve of what the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) said about the more skilful use of the subsidy, and the cut helping towards that more skilful use. But what does the Minister make of the hon. Member's point, in defending the cut, that in any case the farmer can get double? He can come in before 31st May and get the subsidy anyway.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall deal with the general question of the subsidy cut later.
If the farmer chooses to buy in advance he is able to do so and he can help his cost position if he so chooses. That is a simple matter of fact.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Can the Minister remind me whether there is any market price currently below the guaranteed subsidy price?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Member is well aware that we have a considerable cereal deficiency payments bill at present. We are also paying deficiency

payments on lamb. The hon. Member is entirely wrong in trying to maintain otherwise.

Mr. Hughes: I have asked a question.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Member was hoping for the answer that deficiency payments were not operating, whereas they are. The farmers benefit directly from the policies of this Government.
The other point was on the question of soil structure. This is an important matter, and was dealt with by the Strutt Committee. In paragraph 243 of its report that committee said:
So far as we can tell, no damage to structure and fertility of arable land is caused by intelligent use of fertilisers which takes account of soil analysis, acidity, balance of nutrients. responses of crops and the weather
and so on. That is a point that we have to take into account in trying to widen it, in addition to the question of the effect on soil structure.
I want to deal with some points raised by the hon. Member for Durham. I was disappointed with some aspects of his speech. He was not his brightest self. As for his reference to aliquot correlations, as someone whose language I listen to with respect—language I could not have emulated in Committee—I can only say that to start using such phrases in the House was calculated merely to confuse the House and to cover up the barrenness of his argument. I was encouraged to hear him quote from the OECD reports of 1964 in attempting to use them against the Government's policy. At this late stage I am delighted to see his conversion to the cause of Europe, and what it can teach us. I hope that we can benefit from this in future debates.
The hon. Member asked specifically about the consumption of fertilisers. I gather that he quoted from the Abstract of Statistics. The figures that he gave are, I think, figures of fertiliser production, but I should like to look into them in more detail.

Mr. Mark Hughes: These are figures of home deliveries provided in the Annual Abstract of Statistics.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The information which the hon. Gentleman has given does not bear with the information in the Department. I imagine that there


must be an explanation for the basis of those figures. I should like to look at them more closely.
Concerning usage in the United Kingdom, the hon. Gentleman took the decade 1960–61 to 1970–71. I use the figure of nutrient tons. This may be the difference between us. The hon. Gentleman may have used tonnage figures which do not take account of the increased concentration of fertiliser, and so on. This is why I am suspicious of the basis of his figures.
Taking nutrient tons, which is the effective figure of the quantity of fertilisers used, it is significant, taking 1960–61 compared with 1970–71, that the usage increased from 1,292,000 nutrient tons to 1,851,000 nutrient tons. There has in fact been a dramatic increase in the use of fertilisers. What the hon. Gentleman said about stagnating consumption is not right.
It is also interesting that a big increase has taken place between 1969–70 and 1970–71, from 1,620,000 nutrient tons to 1,851,000 nutrient tons. That demonstrates that the advent of a Conservative Government has increased confidence in the industry which has led to an increased uptake for fertiliser. The debate has demonstrated how mixed up the Opposition are in some of their views on this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks), with his obvious practical knowledge of what farmers in his constituency are saying and feeling, showed that over the last two years there has been an enormous improvement in confidence in the industry. This will help us to ensure proper husbandry practices and use of fertiliser in future.
I should emphasise that in the last price review award we increased guarantees by a total of £92 million, a net total of £72 million once this cut in the fertiliser subsidy is taken into account. This demonstrates the faith that we have in British agriculture. I believe that it is a faith to which the industry will respond.
The difference in philosophy between the two sides of the House is that while we have not reduced the amount of resources available to the farmer, we have left it to the farmer to choose how he uses those resources. We have given the British farmer greater flexibility over the way he uses those resources. The Oppo-

sition wish to dictate to the farmer how he uses the resources, whereas we believe in providing the resources and leaving the farmer with the choice of how they are used. That is what we are doing and what hon. Gentlemen opposite are ignoring.
The last matter which they have ignored—they have been careful to glide over it tonight—is that what we have done has been accepted by the NFU.
The opposition to the Scheme has been spurious. Therefore, I have no hesitation in commending the Scheme to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 25th April, be approved.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 67 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)), That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Question agreed to.

Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time), committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Murton.]

IMPERIAL SMELTING CHEMICALS LTD., LLANSAMLET

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Neil McBride: The biological requirements to sustain life in the atmosphere, consisting mainly of nitrogen and oxygen, and in the water and soil to sustain plant life, are limited but constantly replenished by cyclical pressures, and so it is that anything emitted into and held to be injurious in the atmosphere, whether sporadic or of a recurring nature requires to be subjected to careful examination, and this is the reason for debating the, emission


of acidic gases from the Imperial Smelting Chemicals Plant at Llansamlet in my constituency.
As a result of receiving deputations from my constituents from the Llansamlet area I tabled a series of Questions on 24th April about the emission of sulphur dioxide from the Llansamlet plant. If sulphur dioxide is emitted, inevitably it is converted into sulphur trioxide by the atmosphere's humidity. This then leads to the formation of sulphuric acid vapour—or particles—and this is a highly potent corrosive acid, severely injurious to health.
Since October, 1971, there has been a series of emissions from this plant, occurring mainly during the night and at weekends. My constituents wish me to point out that within a radius of one mile from the plant there are several large schools—Trallwn Primary School, Cwm-glas Primary School, Cwm Primary School, Llansamlet Comprehensive and Infants School and Cefn Hengoed Comprehensive School, all with hundreds of pupils. They ask me to say that the time spent on making a survey there was infinitesimal.
Humidity in the atmosphere and wind direction are important when related to the emission of sulphur trioxide, and the serious point here for the Minister to consider is that there is no alkali inspector stationed in Swansea. This means that when a complaint is made an inspector is sent over from Cardiff, not immediately, but the next day, and these inevitably late visits add to the anger and anxiety felt about what my constituents declare is bad atmospheric pollution in the Llansamlet area. As they say, it causes damage to humans, animals, vegetation and, indeed, to buildings in the vicinity.
How many amendments have been made to the Alkali Act, 1906, in this regard? Paragraph 4 of a letter dated 4th May, a copy of which is in the possession of the Secretary of State for the Environment, says that the emission levels given by the Minister are not accurate. Dealing with the emission level figures for sulphur trioxide, the residents point out that during the time the plant was operating at 60 per cent. capacity 20 grains of sulphur trioxide were emitted on 27th April. They assert that

if the plant were operating at 100 per cent. capacity it would emit 3·3 grains of sulphur trioxide, and that is above the permitted level. The recorded levels are taken through the stack, but in view of the topographical nature of the terrain surrounding the plant, one is bound to ask whether the stack is high enough. In view of the high level of humidity, at times almost absolute in Llansamlet, my constituents feel that this could have a retaining effect on the gases emitted in this area.
Because the recorded flow is taken through the stack, this fails to take into account the leaks from the 370 tubes in each heat exchanger, so that two important points emerge. First, what are the corrosive properties of the metal used in the manufacture of the tubes, and, second, we have the question of plant maintenance. In the manufacture of sulphuric acid, with its high corrosive effect, provision should be made for research into metal pipe manufacture with the aim of producing pipes for these chemical processes which will have the highest possible anti-corrosive properties, and to begin with I would suggest looking into the possibility of using stainless steel.
There could be provision in the pipe system for a small straight length which could be withdrawn and a similar straight length inserted and withdrawn, cut in half-section to show the extent of the corrosion. This could be done some time prior to the end of the known life of the pipes that are currently being used. The chemical processes used in the manufacture of sulphuric acid could by this means be shown to exert a certain corrosive reaction on the pipes.
I am advised that there is no good reason why, given proper maintenance—this is vital—the manufacture of sulphuric acid should result in such a high level of emission of acidic gas or why such an emission need by tolerated. I am further advised that there is no scientific reason why, under proper control, emissions of acidic gas should not be eliminated entirely. However, all this presupposes good, efficient and constant maintenance services by plant owners.
The Minister will be aware that there have been complaints of vegetation being destroyed through acid burn, and the signs at the montage mountings clearly


confirm this conclusion. Professional opinion based on field study and chemistry reinforces this view, as the bleached condition of plants is indicative of the action of sulphur dioxide emission. Expert opinion—it is as a result of that opinion that I speak tonight; I refer to qualified graduate opinion to the standard of bachelor of chemistry and Ph.D. in chemistry—bears out this conclusion.
In a letter dated 9th May last the Secretary of State for Wales gave me figures of the emission of microgrammes per cubic metre, and those figures contrasted sharply with figures provided on page two of another letter from the right hon. Gentleman dated 4th May in connection with the incidence of respiratory diseases.
In this connection, it is interesting to consider the figures for pollution deposition provided by the Frederick Place Clinic. This clinic is situated one mile in direct line with the plant stack. The clinic pointed out that it is high on a hillside, tucked away round the bend of a hill, on the lee side and not on the windward side. The moist south and south-west winds which keep sulphur dioxide down and over Llansamlet do not blow towards this clinic. Therefore, the peaks of pollution are not recorded. Only the outside weakest fringes are recorded. The accuracy of the recording figures furnished to me in the letter of 9th May is therefore questionable. In the Llansamlet area there is a belief that one would require greater accuracy.
In the South Wales Evening Post of 27th April it is admitted that malfunctioning of certain equipment in the plant lasted for about six weeks, and apologies were tendered to local residents for any distress caused. But it is interesting to note that local house roofs, in some cases, required repair as a result of the erosion of the nails which affix the slates and tiles. One wonders who pays for the repairs. I have not been satisfied with the answer I received to a Question I put on that subject.
In a letter to me dated 9th May, the Secretary of State for Wales intimated that the head teachers of Cwm Junior School and Trallyn Infants School had noticed a tendency to respiratory irritation in damp or foggy weather. My constituents ask for better monitoring

arrangements and speedier inspection arrangements to ensure that sensible measures are undertaken. It is equally obvious that, with the rapid development of the chemical industry, perhaps the old legislative safeguards are insufficient, and it may be that new protective laws should be enacted. In this matter my constituents ask for no more than simple justice. Tonight I prosecute that claim. The right is certainly theirs and they deserve no less. With regard to the relationship with adults, I draw the Minister's attention to the letter of 4th May containing references to certain medical opinions.
Returning to the question of children, no child should be exposed to even the slightest risk of even mild respiratory irritation. I ask the Minister to ensure that medical safeguards are erected against respiratory infection of any nature caused by industrial processing. Clearly the malfunction of equipment was the reason for the emissions of sulphur trioxide which occurred. The Minister may feel that he has a duty to consider new legislation or amendment to existing legislation to prevent any instances of respiratory symptoms or chronic bronchial conditions in Llansamlet.
Therefore, I ask that a full, detailed and authoritative inquiry be instituted. What has gone before has not satisfied my constituents. They would like such an inquiry to be held, with the following factors as terms of reference. First, there is the question of bringing up to date the Alkali Act, 1906, and a consideration of the maximum levels of deposition permitted in areas of geographical and climatic difficulty such as Llansamlet. Second, there should be continuous recording of SO2 and SO3 levels on four sites chosen by Llansamlet residents, who would suggest the levels and the correct places. Third, a full maintenance programme should be instituted to avoid repetition of another breakdown causing emission and, therefore, anxiety. Finally, failing the appointment of an alkali inspector for the Swansea area, there should be an emergency system of contacting the Alkali Inspectorate in order that inspectors can assess conditions at a period of emission and not subsequent to that emission.
These are the things I ask for my constituents. I place the matter in objective fashion, shorn of any other consideration, before the Minister of State trusting that


he will accept all the requests which I make in that fashion.

12.30 a.m.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) is to be congratulated on choosing for the Adjournment debate a subject which is of such importance to his constituents. Had I a problem in my constituency which had caused anxieties such as the hon. Gentleman has described, I would have sought to do the same as the hon. Gentleman has done tonight. He has addressed the House on a highly scientific matter. I shall attempt to deal with the points he has raised. If I do not deal with all the points, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be only too happy to talk to him, to exchange correspondence, or to look further into the matter, in an effort to help him to allay the anxieties of his constituents.
As the hon. Gentleman said, my right hon. Friend has written to him about the problems which have arisen due to emissions of sulphur dioxide from this works. It may be useful if I set out in detail how the problems have arisen and what steps are being taken to deal with them.
Imperial Smelting Chemicals Limited operates a contact sulphuric acid manufacturing plant in Swansea which has been subject to the provisions of the Alkali Act for over 10 years. The sulphuric acid is produced from sulphur dioxide gas. Before September, 1971, this gas was mainly obtained by smelting lead and zinc ores, but, following the closure of the lead and zinc processing part of the works at that time, the sulphuric acid plant was modified to incorporate the burning of elemental sulphur to produce sulphur dioxide.
The new process involves the conversion of sulphur dioxide gas into sulphur trioxide and the absorption of this gas in sulphuric acid to produce more acid. To ensure the most efficient conversion of the sulphur dioxide, the hot sulphur trioxide leaving the converter chambers is used in a series of heat exchangers to preheat the incoming sulphur dioxide. The residual gases are processed to remove acid gas, and acid mist, and then discharged to the atmosphere through a 120-ft. high chimney. In normal circum

stances, therefore, emissions of the gas to the air are kept to a bare minimum.
During the power shortage at the beginning of this year, however, certain items of plant had to be closed down. I am told that the closure of these units, coupled with the possible inefficient operation of some other items of plant, caused completely unexpected corrosion within the heat exchangers. The conversion process therefore became less efficient, and an increased amount of sulphur dioxide gas emerged to overload the exit gas removal plant.
This, especially during the period at the end of March and early in April this year, resulted in occasional emissions of higher gas concentrations than normal from the final exit chimney.
As my right hon. and learned Friend told the hon. Member, the alkali inspector, who received several complaints about the emissions, went to the factory at the end of March and on his advice immediate steps were taken at the works to reduce emissions by some 30 per cent. The plant was again operating to his satisfaction by mid-April.
The company at that time brought in a special technical team and, once the problem had been identified, put in hand the necessary work to rectify the situation.
The plant has operated since the end of March with two of the six production units out of commission, and since then three units have been rebuilt. It is necessary to run the plant in order to carry out investigations, but tighter control of all parts of the process is now being exercised.
I might add that all this has been done with the approval of the alkali Inspector, and that the company's estimated costs for remedial work done and required amount to over £34,000.
This, then, is the situation at the plant. The hon. Member has rightly emphasised the adverse effects which these emissions could have had on the health of those living in the vicinity of the works. As he knows, the Medical Officer of Health for Swansea County Borough Council was asked by my right hon. and learned Friend to carry out an investigation, and the first results of this investigation, were passed on to the hon. Member in my right hon. and learned Friend's letter of


9th May. A copy of the report has also been placed in the Library of the House.
At that stage the borough's school medical officers had visited seven schools in the vicinity of the works. At two of these the head teachers reported that in some foggy or damp weather conditions in recent months they had noticed a tendency towards respiratory irritation amongst some of the children. No children, however, were presented to the borough's medical officers as continuing to suffer irritation. At the remaining five schools the head teachers reported that there were no relevant health problems.
The borough medical officer of health also made enquiries with general practitioners whose practices are in the vicinity of the works. They reported that there had been no complaints of ill health arising from the emissions from the Swansea Vale works and that there had been no increase in recent months in cases of coughs and tonsillitis. The medical officer of health has since extended his inquiries and has contacted four other general practices in the area. Three had noticed no increase in morbidity during the relevant period. One had noticed an increase in "eye irritation", but on further investigation the cases referred to were found to have occasioned in Morris-ton, and the general practitioner concerned did not think they were connected with the Llansamlet incident.
The local authority takes daily average readings of sulphur dioxide levels in the atmosphere in the neighbourhood of the works. These showed that during the period 21st March to 10th April, excluding the holiday period, the 24-hour sulphur dioxide average ranged between 271 and 464 microgrammes per cubic metre. On 11th April, a 24-hour average of 584 was recorded, but following that date reported averages were mostly between the range of 60 and 90 microgrammes per cubic metre.
The effect of the steps which have been taken to reduce emissions from the plant is therefore clearly to be seen. Advice from the Medical Research Council is that, on present evidence, no harm should be sustained by man if the daily average of sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere is below 500 microgrammes per cubic metre, on any day, combined with roughly 250 microgrammes per

cubic metre of smoke. Our knowledge of the medical effects so far, therefore, is that the unusually high emissions of sulphur dioxide from the plant over recent months gave rise to some cases of respiratory irritation amongst school children in the area, but there would appear to have been no lasting effects from this. Continuing discussions are being held with local authorities, however, about the possible need for further investigations in the area.
Among other things, the local authority is considering the introduction of more complex equipment to monitor levels of sulphur dioxide on a more detailed basis to show peaks as well as daily averages They are also to look into the monitoring of sulphuric acid.
On the effects of the emissions on vegetation in the area, the alkali inspector received complaints about damage to plant life in the vicinity of the works, and reported this to the Chief Public Health Inspector for Swansea County Borough Council. The Chief Public Health Inspector sought assistance from the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. A detailed investigation of the situation could not be undertaken by the service except at the request of farmers in the area, from whom no complaints have so far been received. The advice we have received from the service on an informal basis, is that high emissions of sulphur dioxide such as those which took place during the period from the end of March to the beginning of April could have caused short-term damage to plants by affecting foliage. A number of other factors—the quality of the soil, the presence of other pollutants in the atmosphere, and general climatic conditions—would also have affected the damage caused, but recovery from damage caused by intermittent high emissions of sulphur dioxide would take place within a growing season.
Long-term, serious damage to vegetation would be caused only by continuous high emissions of the gas over a very long period. This advice has been largely corroborated by a report which we have received from the company. Its Environmental Control Officer has investigated complaints, and is examining specimens of damaged plants.
He has not yet established whether damage was caused by sulphur dioxide emissions, soil conditions, general industrial surroundings or a combination of all three; but we must bear in mind that the natural vegetation of the valley has been modified by decades of industrial pollution, so that most native plants have developed a considerable degree of resistance to atmospheric pollutants. It is significant that newly-established tree plantations, mostly conifers, have been found to be perfectly healthy at a distance of half a mile from the works.
I think it is relevant at this point to mention the fact that the Welsh Office is currently sponsoring a multi-disciplinary study of the levels of heavy metal pollution in the atmosphere of Swansea, Neath and Port Talbot, which I announced not many months ago.
This study, which will also survey levels and possible effect of heavy metals in human beings, animals and vegetable life, should throw considerable light on the general position regarding air pollution.
To summarise, I am satisfied that the company has taken and is taking the

necessary steps to reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide to the atmosphere to a level considered satisfactory by the Alkali Inspectorate, and that these emissions are certainly well below the levels which would constitute a danger to health. It is also worth emphasising that acidity tests on emissions from the process art the plant before and after the complaint period were satisfactory. Investigations into the problems at this plant and into other problems of pollution in the area are continuing in conjunction with the local authority, and I will keep the hon. Member informed of subsequent developments.
If the hon. Member finds on reading my speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT that I have not dealt adequately with any points, I will be more than happy to meet him and talk about them with him, because this is a matter of concern to him and his constituents and the Welsh Office wishes to take all possible steps to put their fears at rest.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to One o'clock.